Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, Allow me to share some thoughts with you First of all, It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus That is a tradition and past and present and future practice. I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking These are pure allegation and hostile positions Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me. Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG The issue is not who is right and who is not right. The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus. Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views . Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so. Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue. ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus Consequently,: 1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable 2. agree to the case by case concept 3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case 4. agree not to refer to quorum 5.agree not to refer to simple minority 6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus 7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making 8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues 9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed. 10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus TKS KAVOUSS 2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Joe,
you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM *To:* internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Wolf:
I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum.
Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Dear Heather,
I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this
I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM *To:* wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com *Cc:* Internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call.
Heather
*From*: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>] *Sent*: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM *To*: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc*: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org <Internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
All,
let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator.
As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited.
Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Cc:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss
2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM *To:* Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* ICG <internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All ..
As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that:
- Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus ..
- Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA
- A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided
- Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections)
- Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities)
ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically:
- Stresses the need for reaching consensus
- Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part
- Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis
- List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend ..
Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page ..
Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Uduma *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM *To:* Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* ICG *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:
1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.
2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :
Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed.
3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;'
4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.
Safe trip everyone.
Mary Uduma
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
OOOOsh!!!!
Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.
Please ignore my last unfinished mail.
Mary
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Kavouss, your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion. Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM To: WUKnoben ; joseph alhadeff ; Coordination Group ; Jari Arkko ; Manal Ismail Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All, Allow me to share some thoughts with you First of all, It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus That is a tradition and past and present and future practice. I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking These are pure allegation and hostile positions Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me. Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG The issue is not who is right and who is not right. The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus. Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views . Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so. Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue. ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus Consequently,: 1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable 2. agree to the case by case concept 3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case 4. agree not to refer to quorum 5.agree not to refer to simple minority 6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus 7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making 8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues 9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed. 10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus TKS KAVOUSS 2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote: Joe, you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: joseph alhadeff Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Wolf: I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum. Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote: Dear Heather, I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM To: wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com Cc: Internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call. Heather From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com Cc: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion All, let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator. As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited. Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: Manal Ismail ; Mary Uduma ; Jari Arkko ; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss 2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: And thanks to Manal for this very good summary! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM To: Mary Uduma ; Jari Arkko ; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All .. As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that: - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus .. - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA - A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections) - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities) ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically: - Stresses the need for reaching consensus - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend .. Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page .. Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like: 1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph. 2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read : Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed. 3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;' 4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted. Safe trip everyone. Mary Uduma On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: OOOOsh!!!! Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton. Please ignore my last unfinished mail. Mary On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like: On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote: And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.) Jari _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Wolf I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us. The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with. Evey one pushes for its own. I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma You said quote *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration" Unqoute YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with other views Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and getting. I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media quoting some thing from me which I never said that . Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and mindful. Regards Kavouss . 2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear Kavouss,
your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion.
Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All,
Allow me to share some thoughts with you
First of all,
It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus
That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus
That is a tradition and past and present and future practice.
I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting
That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
These are pure allegation and hostile positions
Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem
I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me.
Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG
The issue is not who is right and who is not right.
The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus.
Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT
Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views .
Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing
We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing
The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so.
Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue.
ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus
Consequently,:
1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable
2. agree to the case by case concept
3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case
4. agree not to refer to quorum
5.agree not to refer to simple minority
6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus
7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making
8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues
9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed.
10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus
TKS
KAVOUSS
2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Joe,
you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM *To:* internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Wolf:
I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum.
Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Dear Heather,
I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this
I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM *To:* wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com *Cc:* Internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call.
Heather
*From*: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>] *Sent*: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM *To*: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc*: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org <Internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
All,
let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator.
As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited.
Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Cc:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss
2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM *To:* Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* ICG <internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All ..
As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that:
- Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus ..
- Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA
- A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided
- Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections)
- Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities)
ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically:
- Stresses the need for reaching consensus
- Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part
- Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis
- List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend ..
Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page ..
Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Uduma *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM *To:* Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* ICG *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:
1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.
2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :
Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed.
3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;'
4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.
Safe trip everyone.
Mary Uduma
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
OOOOsh!!!!
Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.
Please ignore my last unfinished mail.
Mary
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko < jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11 Dear All ICG Members , I wish to refer to the draft that I sent to you on 08 September, taking into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee’s comments emphasizing that chair and vice chairs should identify other possible mechanism apart from the one mentioned in that draft May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the covering message., We need to finalize this text as soon as possible Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building with the utmost efforts If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus. However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs together with any other interested party/ties should explore all possible ways and means to identify an appropriate mechanism for a satisfactory resolution of the matter toward consensus . One example and just one example to consider an sissue approved by consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according to the case under consideration, ( case by case concept) Waiting for your kind reply, I remain. Regards 2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us. The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with. Evey one pushes for its own. I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma You said quote *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration" Unqoute YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with other views Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and getting. I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media quoting some thing from me which I never said that . Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and mindful. Regards Kavouss .
2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear Kavouss,
your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion.
Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All,
Allow me to share some thoughts with you
First of all,
It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus
That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus
That is a tradition and past and present and future practice.
I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting
That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
These are pure allegation and hostile positions
Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem
I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me.
Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG
The issue is not who is right and who is not right.
The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus.
Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT
Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views .
Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing
We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing
The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so.
Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue.
ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus
Consequently,:
1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable
2. agree to the case by case concept
3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case
4. agree not to refer to quorum
5.agree not to refer to simple minority
6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus
7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making
8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues
9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed.
10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus
TKS
KAVOUSS
2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Joe,
you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM *To:* internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Wolf:
I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum.
Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Dear Heather,
I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this
I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM *To:* wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com *Cc:* Internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call.
Heather
*From*: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>] *Sent*: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM *To*: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc*: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org <Internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
All,
let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator.
As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited.
Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Cc:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss
2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM *To:* Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* ICG <internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All ..
As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that:
- Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus ..
- Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA
- A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided
- Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections)
- Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities)
ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically:
- Stresses the need for reaching consensus
- Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part
- Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis
- List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend ..
Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page ..
Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Uduma *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM *To:* Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* ICG *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:
1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.
2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :
Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed.
3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;'
4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.
Safe trip everyone.
Mary Uduma
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
OOOOsh!!!!
Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.
Please ignore my last unfinished mail.
Mary
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko < jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear all, attached please find my remaining amendments with the following explanations regarding some of them: a.. 4.a. last paragraph: I’ve inserted “The selection is done by a majority vote.” Rationale: The para talks about “...run a vote...”. The succeeding voting threshold must be clear. b.. 4.b. first paragraph: grammatical edits c.. 4.b. insertion of an additional bullet point re principles (Manal) which I support d.. 4.c.iii. re-insertion of “serious” Rationale: Opportunity should not be given for all kinds of objection since the issue should have been discussed extensively in advance to the designation. The remaining objection should then be characterized as « serious ». I would in particular be interested in the chair’s/VCs’ opinion regarding the case by case approach since they may want to facilitate the process. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: joseph alhadeff ; Coordination Group ; Jari Arkko ; Manal Ismail Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11 Dear All ICG Members , I wish to refer to the draft that I sent to you on 08 September, taking into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee’s comments emphasizing that chair and vice chairs should identify other possible mechanism apart from the one mentioned in that draft May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the covering message., We need to finalize this text as soon as possible Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building with the utmost efforts If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus. However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs together with any other interested party/ties should explore all possible ways and means to identify an appropriate mechanism for a satisfactory resolution of the matter toward consensus . One example and just one example to consider an sissue approved by consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according to the case under consideration, ( case by case concept) Waiting for your kind reply, I remain. Regards 2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear Wolf I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us. The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with. Evey one pushes for its own. I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma You said quote *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration" Unqoute YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with other views Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and getting. I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media quoting some thing from me which I never said that . Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and mindful. Regards Kavouss . 2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: Dear Kavouss, your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion. Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM To: WUKnoben ; joseph alhadeff ; Coordination Group ; Jari Arkko ; Manal Ismail Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All, Allow me to share some thoughts with you First of all, It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus That is a tradition and past and present and future practice. I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking These are pure allegation and hostile positions Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me. Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG The issue is not who is right and who is not right. The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus. Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views . Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so. Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue. ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus Consequently,: 1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable 2. agree to the case by case concept 3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case 4. agree not to refer to quorum 5.agree not to refer to simple minority 6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus 7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making 8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues 9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed. 10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus TKS KAVOUSS 2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote: Joe, you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: joseph alhadeff Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Wolf: I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum. Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote: Dear Heather, I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM To: wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com Cc: Internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call. Heather From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com Cc: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion All, let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator. As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited. Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: Manal Ismail ; Mary Uduma ; Jari Arkko ; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss 2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: And thanks to Manal for this very good summary! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM To: Mary Uduma ; Jari Arkko ; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All .. As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that: - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus .. - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA - A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections) - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities) ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically: - Stresses the need for reaching consensus - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend .. Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page .. Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like: 1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph. 2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read : Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed. 3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;' 4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted. Safe trip everyone. Mary Uduma On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: OOOOsh!!!! Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton. Please ignore my last unfinished mail. Mary On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like: On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote: And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.) Jari _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg -------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Wolf, Thank you for your kind and prompt reply I have made following amendments to your draft as follows: Para. 4 a,second sub-para. second part of that sub-para ," is " is replaced by " should be " Para. 4 b ,first bullet below sencond sub-para, The part saying " Consensus here refers to" is replced by" The above-mentioned " due to the fact that the paragraph to which this bullet referred does not deal with " Consensus" rather it referred to " Decicion" . In the same bullet the phrase" if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities" is replaced by" which would be handled on a case by case basis " This was the overall agreemnt that G11 reached after the ICG meeting in Istanbul . Last page , in iii, As a matter of fact, I am not comfortable in using any adjective like "serious" or " firm" or "major" to describe opposition . However, to be more cooperative I could reluctantly agree to use the adjective " justified" as such opposition needs to be submitted with necessary justifications .In that case the adjective " serious" is replaced by" justified " . Moreover, in reviewing the text, I found some structural and content mistakes in para. c) ,second bullet which I have corrected Finally Under the same section c) in bullet 3 ,I suggest we replace" example " by " option" to be consistent with the terms used in bullet 2 above .However, I leave it to you to agree with that change I hope you and others agree with these small edits Kavouss 2014-09-10 21:53 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear all,
attached please find my remaining amendments with the following explanations regarding some of them:
- 4.a. last paragraph: I’ve inserted “The selection is done by a majority vote.”
Rationale: The para talks about “...run a vote...”. The succeeding voting threshold must be clear. -
4.b. first paragraph: grammatical edits -
4.b. insertion of an additional bullet point re principles (Manal) which I support -
4.c.iii. re-insertion of “serious”
Rationale: Opportunity should not be given for *all* kinds of objection since the issue should have been discussed extensively in advance to the designation. The remaining objection should then be characterized as « serious ».
I would in particular be interested in the chair’s/VCs’ opinion regarding the case by case approach since they may want to facilitate the process.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Cc:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11
Dear All ICG Members ,
I wish to refer to the draft that I sent to you on 08 September, taking into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee’s comments emphasizing that chair and vice chairs should identify other possible mechanism apart from the one mentioned in that draft
May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the covering message.,
We need to finalize this text as soon as possible
Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building with the utmost efforts
If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus.
However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs together with any other interested party/ties should explore all possible ways and means to identify an appropriate mechanism for a satisfactory resolution of the matter toward consensus .
One example and just one example to consider an sissue approved by consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according to the case under consideration,
( case by case concept)
Waiting for your kind reply, I remain.
Regards
2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us. The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with. Evey one pushes for its own. I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma You said quote *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration" Unqoute YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with other views Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and getting. I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media quoting some thing from me which I never said that . Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and mindful. Regards Kavouss .
2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear Kavouss,
your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion.
Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All,
Allow me to share some thoughts with you
First of all,
It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus
That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus
That is a tradition and past and present and future practice.
I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting
That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
These are pure allegation and hostile positions
Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem
I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me.
Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG
The issue is not who is right and who is not right.
The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus.
Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT
Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views .
Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing
We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing
The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so.
Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue.
ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus
Consequently,:
1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable
2. agree to the case by case concept
3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case
4. agree not to refer to quorum
5.agree not to refer to simple minority
6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus
7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making
8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues
9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed.
10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus
TKS
KAVOUSS
2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Joe,
you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM *To:* internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Wolf:
I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum.
Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Dear Heather,
I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this
I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM *To:* wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com *Cc:* Internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call.
Heather
*From*: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>] *Sent*: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM *To*: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc*: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org <Internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
All,
let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator.
As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited.
Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Cc:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss
2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM *To:* Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* ICG <internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All ..
As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that:
- Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus ..
- Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA
- A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided
- Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections)
- Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities)
ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically:
- Stresses the need for reaching consensus
- Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part
- Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis
- List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend ..
Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page ..
Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Uduma *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM *To:* Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* ICG *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:
1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.
2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :
Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed.
3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;'
4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.
Safe trip everyone.
Mary Uduma
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
OOOOsh!!!!
Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.
Please ignore my last unfinished mail.
Mary
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko < jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Kavouss, accepted. As you can see attached I suggest to shift the text marked under “Recommendation” to the part where the evaluation method is described. Or at least separate it from the bullet points here. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:37 AM To: WUKnoben Cc: joseph alhadeff ; Coordination Group ; Jari Arkko ; Manal Ismail Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear Wolf, Thank you for your kind and prompt reply I have made following amendments to your draft as follows: Para. 4 a,second sub-para. second part of that sub-para ," is " is replaced by " should be " Para. 4 b ,first bullet below sencond sub-para, The part saying " Consensus here refers to" is replced by" The above-mentioned " due to the fact that the paragraph to which this bullet referred does not deal with " Consensus" rather it referred to " Decicion" . In the same bullet the phrase" if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities" is replaced by" which would be handled on a case by case basis " This was the overall agreemnt that G11 reached after the ICG meeting in Istanbul . Last page , in iii, As a matter of fact, I am not comfortable in using any adjective like "serious" or " firm" or "major" to describe opposition . However, to be more cooperative I could reluctantly agree to use the adjective " justified" as such opposition needs to be submitted with necessary justifications .In that case the adjective " serious" is replaced by" justified " . Moreover, in reviewing the text, I found some structural and content mistakes in para. c) ,second bullet which I have corrected Finally Under the same section c) in bullet 3 ,I suggest we replace" example " by " option" to be consistent with the terms used in bullet 2 above .However, I leave it to you to agree with that change I hope you and others agree with these small edits Kavouss 2014-09-10 21:53 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: Dear all, attached please find my remaining amendments with the following explanations regarding some of them: a.. 4.a. last paragraph: I’ve inserted “The selection is done by a majority vote.” Rationale: The para talks about “...run a vote...”. The succeeding voting threshold must be clear. b.. 4.b. first paragraph: grammatical edits c.. 4.b. insertion of an additional bullet point re principles (Manal) which I support d.. 4.c.iii. re-insertion of “serious” Rationale: Opportunity should not be given for all kinds of objection since the issue should have been discussed extensively in advance to the designation. The remaining objection should then be characterized as « serious ». I would in particular be interested in the chair’s/VCs’ opinion regarding the case by case approach since they may want to facilitate the process. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: joseph alhadeff ; Coordination Group ; Jari Arkko ; Manal Ismail Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11 Dear All ICG Members , I wish to refer to the draft that I sent to you on 08 September, taking into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee’s comments emphasizing that chair and vice chairs should identify other possible mechanism apart from the one mentioned in that draft May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the covering message., We need to finalize this text as soon as possible Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building with the utmost efforts If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus. However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs together with any other interested party/ties should explore all possible ways and means to identify an appropriate mechanism for a satisfactory resolution of the matter toward consensus . One example and just one example to consider an sissue approved by consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according to the case under consideration, ( case by case concept) Waiting for your kind reply, I remain. Regards 2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear Wolf I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us. The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with. Evey one pushes for its own. I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma You said quote *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration" Unqoute YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with other views Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and getting. I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media quoting some thing from me which I never said that . Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and mindful. Regards Kavouss . 2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: Dear Kavouss, your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion. Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM To: WUKnoben ; joseph alhadeff ; Coordination Group ; Jari Arkko ; Manal Ismail Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All, Allow me to share some thoughts with you First of all, It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus That is a tradition and past and present and future practice. I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking These are pure allegation and hostile positions Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me. Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG The issue is not who is right and who is not right. The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus. Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views . Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so. Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue. ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus Consequently,: 1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable 2. agree to the case by case concept 3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case 4. agree not to refer to quorum 5.agree not to refer to simple minority 6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus 7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making 8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues 9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed. 10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus TKS KAVOUSS 2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote: Joe, you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: joseph alhadeff Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Wolf: I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum. Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote: Dear Heather, I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM To: wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com Cc: Internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call. Heather From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com Cc: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion All, let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator. As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited. Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: Manal Ismail ; Mary Uduma ; Jari Arkko ; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss 2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: And thanks to Manal for this very good summary! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM To: Mary Uduma ; Jari Arkko ; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All .. As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that: - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus .. - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA - A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections) - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities) ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically: - Stresses the need for reaching consensus - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend .. Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page .. Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like: 1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph. 2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read : Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed. 3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;' 4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted. Safe trip everyone. Mary Uduma On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: OOOOsh!!!! Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton. Please ignore my last unfinished mail. Mary On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like: On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote: And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.) Jari _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg ------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Wolf May I now produce a clean document and send it to others for final comments notably of purely editorial and grammatical nature? Kavouss 2014-09-11 8:34 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Thanks Kavouss, accepted.
As you can see attached I suggest to shift the text marked under “Recommendation” to the part where the evaluation method is described. Or at least separate it from the bullet points here.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:37 AM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Cc:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Thank you for your kind and prompt reply I have made following amendments to your draft as follows: Para. 4 a,second sub-para. second part of that sub-para ," is " is replaced by " should be " Para. 4 b ,first bullet below sencond sub-para, The part saying " Consensus here refers to" is replced by" The above-mentioned " due to the fact that the paragraph to which this bullet referred does not deal with " Consensus" rather it referred to " Decicion" . In the same bullet the phrase" if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities" is replaced by" which would be handled on a case by case basis " This was the overall agreemnt that G11 reached after the ICG meeting in Istanbul . Last page , in iii, As a matter of fact, I am not comfortable in using any adjective like "serious" or " firm" or "major" to describe opposition . However, to be more cooperative I could reluctantly agree to use the adjective " justified" as such opposition needs to be submitted with necessary justifications .In that case the adjective " serious" is replaced by" justified " . Moreover, in reviewing the text, I found some structural and content mistakes in para. c) ,second bullet which I have corrected Finally Under the same section c) in bullet 3 ,I suggest we replace" example " by " option" to be consistent with the terms used in bullet 2 above .However, I leave it to you to agree with that change
I hope you and others agree with these small edits Kavouss
2014-09-10 21:53 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear all,
attached please find my remaining amendments with the following explanations regarding some of them:
- 4.a. last paragraph: I’ve inserted “The selection is done by a majority vote.”
Rationale: The para talks about “...run a vote...”. The succeeding voting threshold must be clear. -
4.b. first paragraph: grammatical edits -
4.b. insertion of an additional bullet point re principles (Manal) which I support -
4.c.iii. re-insertion of “serious”
Rationale: Opportunity should not be given for *all* kinds of objection since the issue should have been discussed extensively in advance to the designation. The remaining objection should then be characterized as « serious ».
I would in particular be interested in the chair’s/VCs’ opinion regarding the case by case approach since they may want to facilitate the process.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Cc:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11
Dear All ICG Members ,
I wish to refer to the draft that I sent to you on 08 September, taking into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee’s comments emphasizing that chair and vice chairs should identify other possible mechanism apart from the one mentioned in that draft
May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the covering message.,
We need to finalize this text as soon as possible
Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building with the utmost efforts
If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus.
However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs together with any other interested party/ties should explore all possible ways and means to identify an appropriate mechanism for a satisfactory resolution of the matter toward consensus .
One example and just one example to consider an sissue approved by consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according to the case under consideration,
( case by case concept)
Waiting for your kind reply, I remain.
Regards
2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us. The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with. Evey one pushes for its own. I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma You said quote *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration" Unqoute YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with other views Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and getting. I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media quoting some thing from me which I never said that . Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and mindful. Regards Kavouss .
2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear Kavouss,
your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion.
Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All,
Allow me to share some thoughts with you
First of all,
It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus
That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus
That is a tradition and past and present and future practice.
I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting
That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
These are pure allegation and hostile positions
Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem
I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me.
Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG
The issue is not who is right and who is not right.
The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus.
Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT
Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views .
Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing
We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing
The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so.
Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue.
ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus
Consequently,:
1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable
2. agree to the case by case concept
3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case
4. agree not to refer to quorum
5.agree not to refer to simple minority
6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus
7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making
8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues
9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed.
10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus
TKS
KAVOUSS
2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Joe,
you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM *To:* internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Wolf:
I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum.
Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Dear Heather,
I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this
I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM *To:* wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com *Cc:* Internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call.
Heather
*From*: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>] *Sent*: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM *To*: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc*: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org <Internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
All,
let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator.
As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited.
Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Cc:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss
2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM *To:* Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* ICG <internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All ..
As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that:
- Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus ..
- Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA
- A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided
- Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections)
- Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities)
ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically:
- Stresses the need for reaching consensus
- Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part
- Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis
- List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend ..
Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page ..
Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Uduma *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM *To:* Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* ICG *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:
1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.
2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :
Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed.
3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;'
4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.
Safe trip everyone.
Mary Uduma
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
OOOOsh!!!!
Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.
Please ignore my last unfinished mail.
Mary
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko < jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Yes Kavouss, it should be a new clean version. As there is still time available until the ICG call on 17 Sep where the document may be approved I would be open to comments not only of editorial or grammatical nature. It should be avoided that in the last moment uncertainties or misinterpretationswill appear which may force us continue with the discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 11:24 AM To: WUKnoben Cc: joseph alhadeff ; Coordination Group ; Jari Arkko ; Manal Ismail Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear Wolf May I now produce a clean document and send it to others for final comments notably of purely editorial and grammatical nature? Kavouss 2014-09-11 8:34 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: Thanks Kavouss, accepted. As you can see attached I suggest to shift the text marked under “Recommendation” to the part where the evaluation method is described. Or at least separate it from the bullet points here. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:37 AM To: WUKnoben Cc: joseph alhadeff ; Coordination Group ; Jari Arkko ; Manal Ismail Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear Wolf, Thank you for your kind and prompt reply I have made following amendments to your draft as follows: Para. 4 a,second sub-para. second part of that sub-para ," is " is replaced by " should be " Para. 4 b ,first bullet below sencond sub-para, The part saying " Consensus here refers to" is replced by" The above-mentioned " due to the fact that the paragraph to which this bullet referred does not deal with " Consensus" rather it referred to " Decicion" . In the same bullet the phrase" if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities" is replaced by" which would be handled on a case by case basis " This was the overall agreemnt that G11 reached after the ICG meeting in Istanbul . Last page , in iii, As a matter of fact, I am not comfortable in using any adjective like "serious" or " firm" or "major" to describe opposition . However, to be more cooperative I could reluctantly agree to use the adjective " justified" as such opposition needs to be submitted with necessary justifications .In that case the adjective " serious" is replaced by" justified " . Moreover, in reviewing the text, I found some structural and content mistakes in para. c) ,second bullet which I have corrected Finally Under the same section c) in bullet 3 ,I suggest we replace" example " by " option" to be consistent with the terms used in bullet 2 above .However, I leave it to you to agree with that change I hope you and others agree with these small edits Kavouss 2014-09-10 21:53 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: Dear all, attached please find my remaining amendments with the following explanations regarding some of them: a.. 4.a. last paragraph: I’ve inserted “The selection is done by a majority vote.” Rationale: The para talks about “...run a vote...”. The succeeding voting threshold must be clear. b.. 4.b. first paragraph: grammatical edits c.. 4.b. insertion of an additional bullet point re principles (Manal) which I support d.. 4.c.iii. re-insertion of “serious” Rationale: Opportunity should not be given for all kinds of objection since the issue should have been discussed extensively in advance to the designation. The remaining objection should then be characterized as « serious ». I would in particular be interested in the chair’s/VCs’ opinion regarding the case by case approach since they may want to facilitate the process. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: joseph alhadeff ; Coordination Group ; Jari Arkko ; Manal Ismail Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11 Dear All ICG Members , I wish to refer to the draft that I sent to you on 08 September, taking into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee’s comments emphasizing that chair and vice chairs should identify other possible mechanism apart from the one mentioned in that draft May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the covering message., We need to finalize this text as soon as possible Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building with the utmost efforts If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus. However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs together with any other interested party/ties should explore all possible ways and means to identify an appropriate mechanism for a satisfactory resolution of the matter toward consensus . One example and just one example to consider an sissue approved by consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according to the case under consideration, ( case by case concept) Waiting for your kind reply, I remain. Regards 2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear Wolf I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us. The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with. Evey one pushes for its own. I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma You said quote *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration" Unqoute YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with other views Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and getting. I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media quoting some thing from me which I never said that . Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and mindful. Regards Kavouss . 2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: Dear Kavouss, your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion. Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM To: WUKnoben ; joseph alhadeff ; Coordination Group ; Jari Arkko ; Manal Ismail Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All, Allow me to share some thoughts with you First of all, It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus That is a tradition and past and present and future practice. I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking These are pure allegation and hostile positions Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me. Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG The issue is not who is right and who is not right. The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus. Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views . Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so. Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue. ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus Consequently,: 1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable 2. agree to the case by case concept 3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case 4. agree not to refer to quorum 5.agree not to refer to simple minority 6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus 7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making 8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues 9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed. 10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus TKS KAVOUSS 2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote: Joe, you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: joseph alhadeff Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Wolf: I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum. Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote: Dear Heather, I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM To: wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com Cc: Internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call. Heather From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com Cc: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion All, let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator. As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited. Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: Manal Ismail ; Mary Uduma ; Jari Arkko ; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss 2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: And thanks to Manal for this very good summary! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM To: Mary Uduma ; Jari Arkko ; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All .. As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that: - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus .. - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA - A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections) - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities) ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically: - Stresses the need for reaching consensus - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend .. Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page .. Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like: 1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph. 2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read : Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed. 3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;' 4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted. Safe trip everyone. Mary Uduma On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: OOOOsh!!!! Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton. Please ignore my last unfinished mail. Mary On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like: On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote: And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.) Jari _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg ---------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg -------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Wolf I found another area which could be grammatically and structurally be improved It should be noted that a document is considered as a stable draft for approval, provided that the draft is available at least 7 calendar days before the date on which the approval process is scheduled . [An effort should be made to document the variance in viewpoint] This part is deleted since does not say any thing at all..I kept the remaining but replaced justified minority views deviating from the recommendation can be separately expressed and documented in the report . Based on that.,may I produced a clean text Kavouss 2014-09-11 11:24 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf May I now produce a clean document and send it to others for final comments notably of purely editorial and grammatical nature? Kavouss
2014-09-11 8:34 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Thanks Kavouss, accepted.
As you can see attached I suggest to shift the text marked under “Recommendation” to the part where the evaluation method is described. Or at least separate it from the bullet points here.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:37 AM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Cc:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Thank you for your kind and prompt reply I have made following amendments to your draft as follows: Para. 4 a,second sub-para. second part of that sub-para ," is " is replaced by " should be " Para. 4 b ,first bullet below sencond sub-para, The part saying " Consensus here refers to" is replced by" The above-mentioned " due to the fact that the paragraph to which this bullet referred does not deal with " Consensus" rather it referred to " Decicion" . In the same bullet the phrase" if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities" is replaced by" which would be handled on a case by case basis " This was the overall agreemnt that G11 reached after the ICG meeting in Istanbul . Last page , in iii, As a matter of fact, I am not comfortable in using any adjective like "serious" or " firm" or "major" to describe opposition . However, to be more cooperative I could reluctantly agree to use the adjective " justified" as such opposition needs to be submitted with necessary justifications .In that case the adjective " serious" is replaced by" justified " . Moreover, in reviewing the text, I found some structural and content mistakes in para. c) ,second bullet which I have corrected Finally Under the same section c) in bullet 3 ,I suggest we replace" example " by " option" to be consistent with the terms used in bullet 2 above .However, I leave it to you to agree with that change
I hope you and others agree with these small edits Kavouss
2014-09-10 21:53 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear all,
attached please find my remaining amendments with the following explanations regarding some of them:
- 4.a. last paragraph: I’ve inserted “The selection is done by a majority vote.”
Rationale: The para talks about “...run a vote...”. The succeeding voting threshold must be clear. -
4.b. first paragraph: grammatical edits -
4.b. insertion of an additional bullet point re principles (Manal) which I support -
4.c.iii. re-insertion of “serious”
Rationale: Opportunity should not be given for *all* kinds of objection since the issue should have been discussed extensively in advance to the designation. The remaining objection should then be characterized as « serious ».
I would in particular be interested in the chair’s/VCs’ opinion regarding the case by case approach since they may want to facilitate the process.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Cc:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11
Dear All ICG Members ,
I wish to refer to the draft that I sent to you on 08 September, taking into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee’s comments emphasizing that chair and vice chairs should identify other possible mechanism apart from the one mentioned in that draft
May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the covering message.,
We need to finalize this text as soon as possible
Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building with the utmost efforts
If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus.
However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs together with any other interested party/ties should explore all possible ways and means to identify an appropriate mechanism for a satisfactory resolution of the matter toward consensus .
One example and just one example to consider an sissue approved by consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according to the case under consideration,
( case by case concept)
Waiting for your kind reply, I remain.
Regards
2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us. The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with. Evey one pushes for its own. I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma You said quote *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration" Unqoute YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with other views Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and getting. I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media quoting some thing from me which I never said that . Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and mindful. Regards Kavouss .
2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear Kavouss,
your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion.
Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All,
Allow me to share some thoughts with you
First of all,
It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus
That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus
That is a tradition and past and present and future practice.
I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting
That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
These are pure allegation and hostile positions
Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem
I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me.
Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG
The issue is not who is right and who is not right.
The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus.
Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT
Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views .
Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing
We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing
The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so.
Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue.
ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus
Consequently,:
1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable
2. agree to the case by case concept
3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case
4. agree not to refer to quorum
5.agree not to refer to simple minority
6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus
7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making
8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues
9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed.
10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus
TKS
KAVOUSS
2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> :
Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Joe,
you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM *To:* internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Wolf:
I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum.
Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Dear Heather,
I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this
I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM *To:* wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com *Cc:* Internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call.
Heather
*From*: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>] *Sent*: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM *To*: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc*: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org <Internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
All,
let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator.
As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited.
Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Cc:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss
2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
> And thanks to Manal for this very good summary! > > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > *From:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> > *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM > *To:* Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko > <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > *Cc:* ICG <internal-cg@icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion > > > Dear All .. > > > > As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ > discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify > that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone > agreed that: > > - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus .. > > - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal > submitted to the NTIA > > - A situation where one person can block the whole process > should be avoided > > - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated > qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively > (based on the number of objections) > > - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the > handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to > approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then > be referred back to the relevant communities) > > > > ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal > suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically: > > - Stresses the need for reaching consensus > > - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the > text from this part > > - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation > of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a > case by case basis > > - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose > to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF > document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, > particularly how to deal with different opinions > > > > So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the > chance to attend .. > > Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other > present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the > same page .. > > Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members > who were present for the constructive exchange .. > > > > Kind Regards > > --Manal > > > > *From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: > internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Uduma > *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM > *To:* Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh > *Cc:* ICG > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion > > > > > > Jari , Arasteh and All, > > > > Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with > correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and > all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the > document. It is a bit confusing. > > > > I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and > formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being > that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object > regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the > communities. > > > > In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do > the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like: > > > 1. Purpose: > " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph. > > 2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: > Last paragraph 1st sentence should read : > > Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG > in relation to its activities should be duly considered and > carefully analyzed. > > > 3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read > ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible > for designating each ICG position as one of the following;' > > 4. 4b under Recommendation > ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... > The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer > necessary, they should be deleted. > > > Safe trip everyone. > > Mary Uduma > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > OOOOsh!!!! > > > > Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton. > > > > Please ignore my last unfinished mail. > > > > Mary > > > > On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > Jari , Arasteh and All, > > > > Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate > the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with > the old version. > > > > I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, > please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members > are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part > of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities. > > > > In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do > the minor edits and remove some redundant words like: > > > > On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko < > jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote: > > > > And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to > the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 > > (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is > how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that > light.) > > Jari > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
No, I still have comments on this document. I hope to post in the next 24 hours. Sent from my iPhone On 11 Sep 2014, at 11:28, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Wolf I found another area which could be grammatically and structurally be improved It should be noted that a document is considered as a stable draft for approval, provided that the draft is available at least 7 calendar days before the date on which the approval process is scheduled . [An effort should be made to document the variance in viewpoint] This part is deleted since does not say any thing at all..I kept the remaining but replaced justified minority views deviating from the recommendation can be separately expressed and documented in the report . Based on that.,may I produced a clean text Kavouss 2014-09-11 11:24 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear Wolf May I now produce a clean document and send it to others for final comments notably of purely editorial and grammatical nature? Kavouss 2014-09-11 8:34 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>: Thanks Kavouss, accepted. As you can see attached I suggest to shift the text marked under “Recommendation” to the part where the evaluation method is described. Or at least separate it from the bullet points here. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:37 AM To: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: joseph alhadeff<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko<mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear Wolf, Thank you for your kind and prompt reply I have made following amendments to your draft as follows: Para. 4 a,second sub-para. second part of that sub-para ," is " is replaced by " should be " Para. 4 b ,first bullet below sencond sub-para, The part saying " Consensus here refers to" is replced by" The above-mentioned " due to the fact that the paragraph to which this bullet referred does not deal with " Consensus" rather it referred to " Decicion" . In the same bullet the phrase" if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities" is replaced by" which would be handled on a case by case basis " This was the overall agreemnt that G11 reached after the ICG meeting in Istanbul . Last page , in iii, As a matter of fact, I am not comfortable in using any adjective like "serious" or " firm" or "major" to describe opposition . However, to be more cooperative I could reluctantly agree to use the adjective " justified" as such opposition needs to be submitted with necessary justifications .In that case the adjective " serious" is replaced by" justified " . Moreover, in reviewing the text, I found some structural and content mistakes in para. c) ,second bullet which I have corrected Finally Under the same section c) in bullet 3 ,I suggest we replace" example " by " option" to be consistent with the terms used in bullet 2 above .However, I leave it to you to agree with that change I hope you and others agree with these small edits Kavouss 2014-09-10 21:53 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>: Dear all, attached please find my remaining amendments with the following explanations regarding some of them: * 4.a. last paragraph: I’ve inserted “The selection is done by a majority vote.” Rationale: The para talks about “...run a vote...”. The succeeding voting threshold must be clear. * 4.b. first paragraph: grammatical edits * 4.b. insertion of an additional bullet point re principles (Manal) which I support * 4.c.iii. re-insertion of “serious” Rationale: Opportunity should not be given for all kinds of objection since the issue should have been discussed extensively in advance to the designation. The remaining objection should then be characterized as « serious ». I would in particular be interested in the chair’s/VCs’ opinion regarding the case by case approach since they may want to facilitate the process. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM To: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: joseph alhadeff<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko<mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11 Dear All ICG Members , I wish to refer to the draft that I sent to you on 08 September, taking into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee’s comments emphasizing that chair and vice chairs should identify other possible mechanism apart from the one mentioned in that draft May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the covering message., We need to finalize this text as soon as possible Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building with the utmost efforts If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus. However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs together with any other interested party/ties should explore all possible ways and means to identify an appropriate mechanism for a satisfactory resolution of the matter toward consensus . One example and just one example to consider an sissue approved by consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according to the case under consideration, ( case by case concept) Waiting for your kind reply, I remain. Regards 2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear Wolf I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us. The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with. Evey one pushes for its own. I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma You said quote *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration" Unqoute YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with other views Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and getting. I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media quoting some thing from me which I never said that . Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and mindful. Regards Kavouss . 2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>: Dear Kavouss, your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion. Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM To: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; joseph alhadeff<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko<mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All, Allow me to share some thoughts with you First of all, It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus That is a tradition and past and present and future practice. I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking These are pure allegation and hostile positions Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me. Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG The issue is not who is right and who is not right. The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus. Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views . Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so. Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue. ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus Consequently,: 1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable 2. agree to the case by case concept 3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case 4. agree not to refer to quorum 5.agree not to refer to simple minority 6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus 7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making 8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues 9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed. 10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus TKS KAVOUSS 2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote: Joe, you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: joseph alhadeff<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Wolf: I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum. Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote: Dear Heather, I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca<mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM To: wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call. Heather From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com Cc: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion All, let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator. As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited. Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM To: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Manal Ismail<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma<mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko<mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Coordination Group<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss 2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>: And thanks to Manal for this very good summary! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM To: Mary Uduma<mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko<mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: ICG<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All .. As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that: - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus .. - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA - A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections) - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities) ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically: - Stresses the need for reaching consensus - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend .. Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page .. Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like: 1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph. 2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read : Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed. 3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;' 4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted. Safe trip everyone. Mary Uduma On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com<mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com>> wrote: OOOOsh!!!! Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton. Please ignore my last unfinished mail. Mary On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com<mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com>> wrote: Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like: On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net<mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net>> wrote: And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.) Jari _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg <ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making, V1 New Round,starting 08 Sept + WUK 10 Sep.docx,KA,10 Sep, WUK 11 Sept,KA 11Sep.CLEAN VERSIPON ,.docx> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Martin, Thanks for comments May I then request you and others to comment on the clean Draft taking last comments from Wolf, previous comments from Joe,Jari ,Manal and some edits from me. See what I sent few mints ago .I wait till tomorrow Friday 12 Sept. On early Sunday I leave Geneva to attend CEPT meeting for PP-14 Thus it is preferable to make final draft before Sunday 13.09 Regards Kavouss 2014-09-11 12:39 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
No, I still have comments on this document. I hope to post in the next 24 hours.
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Sep 2014, at 11:28, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Wolf I found another area which could be grammatically and structurally be improved
It should be noted that a document is considered as a stable draft for approval, provided that the draft is available at least 7 calendar days before the date on which the approval process is scheduled .
[An effort should be made to document the variance in viewpoint] This part is deleted since does not say any thing at all..I kept the remaining but replaced justified minority views deviating from the recommendation can be separately expressed and documented in the report . Based on that.,may I produced a clean text
Kavouss
2014-09-11 11:24 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf May I now produce a clean document and send it to others for final comments notably of purely editorial and grammatical nature? Kavouss
2014-09-11 8:34 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Thanks Kavouss, accepted.
As you can see attached I suggest to shift the text marked under “Recommendation” to the part where the evaluation method is described. Or at least separate it from the bullet points here.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:37 AM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Cc:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Thank you for your kind and prompt reply I have made following amendments to your draft as follows: Para. 4 a,second sub-para. second part of that sub-para ," is " is replaced by " should be " Para. 4 b ,first bullet below sencond sub-para, The part saying " Consensus here refers to" is replced by" The above-mentioned " due to the fact that the paragraph to which this bullet referred does not deal with " Consensus" rather it referred to " Decicion" . In the same bullet the phrase" if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities" is replaced by" which would be handled on a case by case basis " This was the overall agreemnt that G11 reached after the ICG meeting in Istanbul . Last page , in iii, As a matter of fact, I am not comfortable in using any adjective like "serious" or " firm" or "major" to describe opposition . However, to be more cooperative I could reluctantly agree to use the adjective " justified" as such opposition needs to be submitted with necessary justifications .In that case the adjective " serious" is replaced by" justified " . Moreover, in reviewing the text, I found some structural and content mistakes in para. c) ,second bullet which I have corrected Finally Under the same section c) in bullet 3 ,I suggest we replace" example " by " option" to be consistent with the terms used in bullet 2 above .However, I leave it to you to agree with that change
I hope you and others agree with these small edits Kavouss
2014-09-10 21:53 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear all,
attached please find my remaining amendments with the following explanations regarding some of them:
- 4.a. last paragraph: I’ve inserted “The selection is done by a majority vote.”
Rationale: The para talks about “...run a vote...”. The succeeding voting threshold must be clear. -
4.b. first paragraph: grammatical edits -
4.b. insertion of an additional bullet point re principles (Manal) which I support -
4.c.iii. re-insertion of “serious”
Rationale: Opportunity should not be given for *all* kinds of objection since the issue should have been discussed extensively in advance to the designation. The remaining objection should then be characterized as « serious ».
I would in particular be interested in the chair’s/VCs’ opinion regarding the case by case approach since they may want to facilitate the process.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Cc:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11
Dear All ICG Members ,
I wish to refer to the draft that I sent to you on 08 September, taking into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee’s comments emphasizing that chair and vice chairs should identify other possible mechanism apart from the one mentioned in that draft
May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the covering message.,
We need to finalize this text as soon as possible
Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building with the utmost efforts
If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus.
However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs together with any other interested party/ties should explore all possible ways and means to identify an appropriate mechanism for a satisfactory resolution of the matter toward consensus .
One example and just one example to consider an sissue approved by consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according to the case under consideration,
( case by case concept)
Waiting for your kind reply, I remain.
Regards
2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us. The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with. Evey one pushes for its own. I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma You said quote *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration" Unqoute YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with other views Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and getting. I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media quoting some thing from me which I never said that . Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and mindful. Regards Kavouss .
2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear Kavouss,
your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion.
Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All,
Allow me to share some thoughts with you
First of all,
It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus
That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus
That is a tradition and past and present and future practice.
I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting
That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
These are pure allegation and hostile positions
Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem
I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me.
Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG
The issue is not who is right and who is not right.
The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus.
Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT
Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views .
Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing
We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing
The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so.
Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue.
ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus
Consequently,:
1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable
2. agree to the case by case concept
3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case
4. agree not to refer to quorum
5.agree not to refer to simple minority
6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus
7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making
8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues
9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed.
10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus
TKS
KAVOUSS
2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com >:
> Dear Wolf > Dear Joe > Dear all, > Please be fair with me. > I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to > absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described > and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options > than the one I put in the draft > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> > wrote: > > Joe, > > you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a > condensed form but not all of them. > Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this > revision again. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > *From:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM > *To:* internal-cg@icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion > > Wolf: > > I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present > in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our > conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum. > > Joe > On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote: > > Dear Heather, > > I attach > - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting > - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the > meeting > - my amendments/comments to this > > I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > *From:* Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca > *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM > *To:* wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com > *Cc:* Internal-cg@icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion > > Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion > group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a > copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to > compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the > Sep. 17 call. > > Heather > > > *From*: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de > <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>] > *Sent*: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM > *To*: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com > <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > *Cc*: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org > <Internal-cg@icann.org> > *Subject*: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion > > All, > > let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session > (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead > towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to > Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 > coordinator. > > As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a > comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we > cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited. > > Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to > use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the > process it should be diligently prepared. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > *From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM > *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> > *Cc:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma > <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Coordination > Group <Internal-cg@icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion > > Dear All, > I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of > your comments > I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. > Please consider this clean version and > 1 make any editorial /language improvement > 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to > redraft. > There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel > comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . > Kavouss > > > > 2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> > : > >> And thanks to Manal for this very good summary! >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> *From:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> >> *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM >> *To:* Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko >> <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh >> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >> *Cc:* ICG <internal-cg@icann.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion >> >> >> Dear All .. >> >> >> >> As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ >> discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify >> that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone >> agreed that: >> >> - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus .. >> >> - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal >> submitted to the NTIA >> >> - A situation where one person can block the whole >> process should be avoided >> >> - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated >> qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively >> (based on the number of objections) >> >> - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the >> handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to >> approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then >> be referred back to the relevant communities) >> >> >> >> ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal >> suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically: >> >> - Stresses the need for reaching consensus >> >> - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the >> text from this part >> >> - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation >> of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a >> case by case basis >> >> - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose >> to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF >> document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, >> particularly how to deal with different opinions >> >> >> >> So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the >> chance to attend .. >> >> Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other >> present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the >> same page .. >> >> Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members >> who were present for the constructive exchange .. >> >> >> >> Kind Regards >> >> --Manal >> >> >> >> *From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: >> internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Uduma >> *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM >> *To:* Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh >> *Cc:* ICG >> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion >> >> >> >> >> >> Jari , Arasteh and All, >> >> >> >> Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions >> with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) >> and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the >> document. It is a bit confusing. >> >> >> >> I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and >> formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being >> that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object >> regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the >> communities. >> >> >> >> In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do >> the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like: >> >> >> 1. Purpose: >> " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph. >> >> 2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: >> Last paragraph 1st sentence should read : >> >> Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG >> in relation to its activities should be duly considered and >> carefully analyzed. >> >> >> 3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read >> ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible >> for designating each ICG position as one of the following;' >> >> 4. 4b under Recommendation >> ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... >> The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer >> necessary, they should be deleted. >> >> >> Safe trip everyone. >> >> Mary Uduma >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> OOOOsh!!!! >> >> >> >> Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton. >> >> >> >> Please ignore my last unfinished mail. >> >> >> >> Mary >> >> >> >> On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Jari , Arasteh and All, >> >> >> >> Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate >> the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with >> the old version. >> >> >> >> I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, >> please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members >> are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part >> of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities. >> >> >> >> In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do >> the minor edits and remove some redundant words like: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko < >> jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link >> to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 >> >> (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is >> how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that >> light.) >> >> Jari >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > >
<ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making, V1 New Round,starting 08 Sept + WUK 10 Sep.docx,KA,10 Sep, WUK 11 Sept,KA 11Sep.CLEAN VERSIPON ,.docx>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks everyone for the work that has been put into this. My comments and suggestions are attached. Couple of process points: * My understanding is that we intend as a group to finalize this document on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17. * Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in the next iteration we could go back to using the document naming convention established by Patrik. <https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docum ents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0> Couple of substantive points that are also highlighted in the attached: * In Section 3, I believe members who will be absent from a call should provide their views in advance, if they wish, to the full ICG, not just the chair/vice-chairs. * In Section 4(b), I do not understand what “any other mechanisms of consensus” means. * In Section 4(c), the second sentence of the Recommendation bullet seemed to require either running a consensus process twice, or it just repeated what was in the first sentence. I don’t think we want to run the same processes twice, so I deleted that sentence. * In Section 4(c), I have reverted the language in the Recommendation example to the suggestion by Martin about directly affected communities being overruled. I think this very important edit was lost in the discussion last week. * In Section 4(c), I don’t understand what this means: "Chair and vice chairs are advised to consider other possible consensus frameworks in addressing the issues, as appropriate to the nature of the case.” What are other possible consensus frameworks? Thanks, Alissa On 9/11/14, 6:46 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Martin, Thanks for comments May I then request you and others to comment on the clean Draft taking last comments from Wolf, previous comments from Joe,Jari ,Manal and some edits from me. See what I sent few mints ago .I wait till tomorrow Friday 12 Sept. On early Sunday I leave Geneva to attend CEPT meeting for PP-14 Thus it is preferable to make final draft before Sunday 13.09 Regards Kavouss
2014-09-11 12:39 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
No, I still have comments on this document. I hope to post in the next 24 hours.
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Sep 2014, at 11:28, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Wolf I found another area which could be grammatically and structurally be improved
It should be noted that a document is considered as a stable draft for approval, provided that the draft is available at least 7 calendar days before the date on which the approval process is scheduled .
[Aneffort shouldbemadeto document the variance in viewpoint] This part is deleted since does not say any thing at all..I kept the remaining but replaced justified minority views deviating from the recommendation can be separately expressed and documented in the report . Based on that.,may I produced a clean text
Kavouss
2014-09-11 11:24 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf May I now produce a clean document and send it to others for final comments notably of purely editorial and grammatical nature? Kavouss
2014-09-11 8:34 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Thanks Kavouss, accepted.
As you can see attached I suggest to shift the text marked under “Recommendation” to the part where the evaluation method is described. Or at least separate it from the bullet points here.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:37 AM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Thank you for your kind and prompt reply I have made following amendments to your draft as follows: Para. 4 a,second sub-para. second part of that sub-para ," is " is replaced by " should be "
Para. 4 b ,first bullet below sencond sub-para, The part saying " Consensus here refers to" is replced by" The above-mentioned " due to the fact that the paragraph to which this bullet referred does not deal with " Consensus" rather it referred to " Decicion" . In the same bullet the phrase" if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities" is replaced by" which would be handled on a case by case basis " This was the overall agreemnt that G11 reached after the ICG meeting in Istanbul . Last page , in iii, As a matter of fact, I am not comfortable in using any adjective like "serious" or " firm" or "major" to describe opposition . However, to be more cooperative I could reluctantly agree to use the adjective " justified" as such opposition needs to be submitted with necessary justifications .In that case the adjective " serious" is replaced by" justified " . Moreover, in reviewing the text, I found some structural and content mistakes in para. c) ,second bullet which I have corrected
Finally Under the same section c) in bullet 3 ,I suggest we replace" example " by " option" to be consistent with the terms used in bullet 2 above .However, I leave it to you to agree with that change
I hope you and others agree with these small edits Kavouss
2014-09-10 21:53 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear all,
attached please find my remaining amendments with the following explanations regarding some of them:
* 4.a. last paragraph: I’ve inserted “The selection is done by a majority vote.” Rationale: The para talks about “...run a vote...”. The succeeding voting threshold must be clear.
* 4.b. first paragraph: grammatical edits
* 4.b. insertion of an additional bullet point re principles (Manal) which I support
* 4.c.iii. re-insertion of “serious”
Rationale: Opportunity should not be given for all kinds of objection since the issue should have been discussed extensively in advance to the designation. The remaining objection should then be characterized as « serious ». I would in particular be interested in the chair’s/VCs’ opinion regarding the case by case approach since they may want to facilitate the process.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11 Dear All ICG Members , I wish to refer to the draft that I sent to you on 08 September, taking into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee’s comments emphasizing that chair and vice chairs should identify other possible mechanism apart from the one mentioned in that draft May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the covering message., We need to finalize this text as soon as possible Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building with the utmost efforts If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus. However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs together with any other interested party/ties should explore all possible ways and means to identify an appropriate mechanism for a satisfactory resolution of the matter toward consensus . One example and just one example to consider an sissue approved by consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according to the case under consideration, ( case by case concept) Waiting for your kind reply, I remain. Regards
2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us. The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with. Evey one pushes for its own. I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma You said quote *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration" Unqoute YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with other views Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and getting. I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media quoting some thing from me which I never said that . Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and mindful. Regards Kavouss .
2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear Kavouss,
your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion.
Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, Allow me to share some thoughts with you
First of all, It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus That is a tradition and past and present and future practice. I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting
That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
These are pure allegation and hostile positions Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me. Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG The issue is not who is right and who is not right. The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus. Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views . Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so. Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue. ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus Consequently,: 1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable
2. agree to the case by case concept 3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case 4. agree not to refer to quorum 5.agree not to refer to simple minority 6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus 7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making 8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues 9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed. 10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus TKS KAVOUSS
2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Joe,
you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Wolf:
I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum.
Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Dear Heather,
I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this
I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca <mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM To: wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call.
Heather
From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
All,
let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator.
As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited.
Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Coordination Group <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss
2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM To: Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: ICG <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All ..
As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that: - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus .. - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA - A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections) - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities)
ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically: - Stresses the need for reaching consensus - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend .. Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page .. Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:
1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.
2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :
Public commentsreceived as a result ofany forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be dulyconsideredand carefully analyzed.
3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read
''Following these basic principles, thechair will beresponsible for designatingeach ICG position as oneof the following;'
4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.
Safe trip everyone.
Mary Uduma
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
OOOOsh!!!!
Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.
Please ignore my last unfinished mail.
Mary
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
<ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making, V1 New Round,starting 08 Sept + WUK 10 Sep.docx,KA,10 Sep, WUK 11 Sept,KA 11Sep.CLEAN VERSIPON ,.docx>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa, I do not understand what we are doing here. If 30 people start to totally redraft the ddocument we never end the drafting process. Those who have not make any comments from 06 September should kindly understand that others made considerable efforts to have some degree of mutual understanding Allow me to reply to your comments one by one 1. Thanks everyone for the work that has been put into this. My comments and suggestions are attached. Couple of process points: No Comments from KA 2. * My understanding is that we intend as a group to finalize this document on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17. Comments from KA ,yes 3 .* Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in the next iteration we could go back tComments from KA ,yes o using the document naming convention established by Patrik. < https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docum ents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20documen...>
Comments from KA That procedure is not an approved way to name .that reflects views from one ICG.However, it is not important Couple of substantive points that are also highlighted in the attached: 4 * In Section 3, I believe members who will be absent from a call should provide their views in advance, if they wish, to the full ICG, not just the chair/vice-chairs. Comments from KA I understand that any views provided to chair and vice chairs should certainly be provided by chair or Vice chair(s) in the absence of the chair to the entire group but I can agree with the amendments as it brings more clarity to the text 5 * In Section 4(b), I do not understand what “any other mechanisms of consensus” means. Comments from KA Please note that ,at G11 informal meeting .at the begining people did not want to have any example.However, they suggested to give one possible example .However, some other people wished to include other examples Finally WE AGREED THAT OTHER EXAMPLES COULD / SHOULD BE EXPLORED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS The term " case by case basis" was the heart of the whole issue that you have unfortunately ignored it and thus the whole discussions of G11 IS OVERRULES BY YOU .I categorically disagree with that. In order to implement , on the one hand, the case by case apèproach, and on the other hand, not to overload the document with several examples, the term “any other mechanisms " as appropriate and according to the case was included . 6 * In Section 4(c), the second sentence of the Recommendation bullet seemed to require either running a consensus process twice, or it just repeated what was in the first sentence. I don’t think we want to run the same processes twice, so I deleted that sentence. Comments from KA Your understanding is right First it is tried to reach consensus once the issue is sufficient discussed In not ,every effort or utmost efforts should be made to explore ways and means other than those previously considered at the first round to acheive consensus 7 * In Section 4(c), I have reverted the language in the Recommendation example to the suggestion by Martin about directly affected communities being overruled. I think this very important edit was lost in the discussion last week. Comments from KA The issue is that people tries to over emphasize should be pointed to each group as , as a general rule the interests of all groups represented in ICG should be taken into account .Agin you wish to limit every thing to three operational communities from the outset whereas that approach should not be taken as general rules. Can you please identify the link 7association of each and evry grouip participating in ICG to the three operational communities that you pointing toward.It is difficult to singleout only secific group as such .However, at further stage ,we may be able to focus on a particular operational or oerating community 8 * In Section 4(c), I don’t understand what this means: "Chair and vice chairs are advised to consider other possible consensus frameworks in addressing the issues, as appropriate to the nature of the case.” What are other possible consensus frameworks? Comments from KA Part of the language is suggested by Wolf However, to reply you, It means that, should the above rounds of efforts were/ are exhausted ,chair and vice chairs ( you may add,together with intrested parties )are advised or should further explore other ways and means to identify other options 7 alternatives e.g. IETF consensus approach ,if the issue relates to the domain of activities of IETF .However, it was agreed that no such sopecific option / mechanism / alternative is referred to at this point of time rather leave it to the CASE BY CASE APPROACH I hope I have replied to your various comments General comment from KA Let us make every effort not to come back to square one .we did a lot of efforts to establish a great degree of understanding and that understanding needs to be retained Regards Kavouss 2014-09-11 17:39 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Thanks everyone for the work that has been put into this. My comments and suggestions are attached. Couple of process points:
* My understanding is that we intend as a group to finalize this document on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17.
* Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in the next iteration we could go back to using the document naming convention established by Patrik. < https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docum ents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0>
Couple of substantive points that are also highlighted in the attached:
* In Section 3, I believe members who will be absent from a call should provide their views in advance, if they wish, to the full ICG, not just the chair/vice-chairs.
* In Section 4(b), I do not understand what “any other mechanisms of consensus” means.
* In Section 4(c), the second sentence of the Recommendation bullet seemed to require either running a consensus process twice, or it just repeated what was in the first sentence. I don’t think we want to run the same processes twice, so I deleted that sentence.
* In Section 4(c), I have reverted the language in the Recommendation example to the suggestion by Martin about directly affected communities being overruled. I think this very important edit was lost in the discussion last week.
* In Section 4(c), I don’t understand what this means: "Chair and vice chairs are advised to consider other possible consensus frameworks in addressing the issues, as appropriate to the nature of the case.” What are other possible consensus frameworks?
Thanks, Alissa
On 9/11/14, 6:46 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Martin, Thanks for comments May I then request you and others to comment on the clean Draft taking last comments from Wolf, previous comments from Joe,Jari ,Manal and some edits from me. See what I sent few mints ago .I wait till tomorrow Friday 12 Sept. On early Sunday I leave Geneva to attend CEPT meeting for PP-14 Thus it is preferable to make final draft before Sunday 13.09 Regards Kavouss
2014-09-11 12:39 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
No, I still have comments on this document. I hope to post in the next 24 hours.
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Sep 2014, at 11:28, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Wolf I found another area which could be grammatically and structurally be improved
It should be noted that a document is considered as a stable draft for approval, provided that the draft is available at least 7 calendar days before the date on which the approval process is scheduled .
[Aneffort shouldbemadeto document the variance in viewpoint] This part is deleted since does not say any thing at all..I kept the remaining but replaced justified minority views deviating from the recommendation can be separately expressed and documented in the report . Based on that.,may I produced a clean text
Kavouss
2014-09-11 11:24 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf May I now produce a clean document and send it to others for final comments notably of purely editorial and grammatical nature? Kavouss
2014-09-11 8:34 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Thanks Kavouss, accepted.
As you can see attached I suggest to shift the text marked under “Recommendation” to the part where the evaluation method is described. Or at least separate it from the bullet points here.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:37 AM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Thank you for your kind and prompt reply I have made following amendments to your draft as follows: Para. 4 a,second sub-para. second part of that sub-para ," is " is replaced by " should be "
Para. 4 b ,first bullet below sencond sub-para, The part saying " Consensus here refers to" is replced by" The above-mentioned " due to the fact that the paragraph to which this bullet referred does not deal with " Consensus" rather it referred to " Decicion" . In the same bullet the phrase" if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities" is replaced by" which would be handled on a case by case basis " This was the overall agreemnt that G11 reached after the ICG meeting in Istanbul . Last page , in iii, As a matter of fact, I am not comfortable in using any adjective like "serious" or " firm" or "major" to describe opposition . However, to be more cooperative I could reluctantly agree to use the adjective " justified" as such opposition needs to be submitted with necessary justifications .In that case the adjective " serious" is replaced by" justified " . Moreover, in reviewing the text, I found some structural and content mistakes in para. c) ,second bullet which I have corrected
Finally Under the same section c) in bullet 3 ,I suggest we replace" example " by " option" to be consistent with the terms used in bullet 2 above .However, I leave it to you to agree with that change
I hope you and others agree with these small edits Kavouss
2014-09-10 21:53 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear all,
attached please find my remaining amendments with the following explanations regarding some of them:
* 4.a. last paragraph: I’ve inserted “The selection is done by a majority vote.” Rationale: The para talks about “...run a vote...”. The succeeding voting threshold must be clear.
* 4.b. first paragraph: grammatical edits
* 4.b. insertion of an additional bullet point re principles (Manal) which I support
* 4.c.iii. re-insertion of “serious”
Rationale: Opportunity should not be given for all kinds of objection since the issue should have been discussed extensively in advance to the designation. The remaining objection should then be characterized as « serious ». I would in particular be interested in the chair’s/VCs’ opinion regarding the case by case approach since they may want to facilitate the process.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11 Dear All ICG Members , I wish to refer to the draft that I sent to you on 08 September, taking into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee’s comments emphasizing that chair and vice chairs should identify other possible mechanism apart from the one mentioned in that draft May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the covering message., We need to finalize this text as soon as possible Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building with the utmost efforts If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus. However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs together with any other interested party/ties should explore all possible ways and means to identify an appropriate mechanism for a satisfactory resolution of the matter toward consensus . One example and just one example to consider an sissue approved by consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according to the case under consideration, ( case by case concept) Waiting for your kind reply, I remain. Regards
2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us. The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with. Evey one pushes for its own. I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma You said quote *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration" Unqoute YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with other views Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and getting. I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media quoting some thing from me which I never said that . Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and mindful. Regards Kavouss .
2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear Kavouss,
your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion.
Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, Allow me to share some thoughts with you
First of all, It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus That is a tradition and past and present and future practice. I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting
That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
These are pure allegation and hostile positions Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me. Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG The issue is not who is right and who is not right. The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus. Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views . Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so. Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue. ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus Consequently,: 1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable
2. agree to the case by case concept 3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case 4. agree not to refer to quorum 5.agree not to refer to simple minority 6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus 7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making 8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues 9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed. 10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus TKS KAVOUSS
2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Joe,
you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Wolf:
I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum.
Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Dear Heather,
I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this
I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca <mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM To: wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call.
Heather
From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
All,
let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator.
As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited.
Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Coordination Group <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss
2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM To: Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: ICG <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All ..
As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that: - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus .. - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA - A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections) - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities)
ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically: - Stresses the need for reaching consensus - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend .. Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page .. Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:
1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.
2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :
Public commentsreceived as a result ofany forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be dulyconsideredand carefully analyzed.
3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read
''Following these basic principles, thechair will beresponsible for designatingeach ICG position as oneof the following;'
4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.
Safe trip everyone.
Mary Uduma
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
OOOOsh!!!!
Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.
Please ignore my last unfinished mail.
Mary
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
<ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making, V1 New Round,starting 08 Sept + WUK 10 Sep.docx,KA,10 Sep, WUK 11 Sept,KA 11Sep.CLEAN VERSIPON ,.docx>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Alissa for making a number of the comments that I was also drafting. I too would like to preface my remarks with some general points. First: that a little group got together and agreed a text in the margins of the meeting is a good way to work. However, the final text has to be approved by the committee. I was excluded from the discussion in Istanbul (as was Alissa), even though I think I had made it reasonably clear that I have a strong interest in the text. It is surely better to have concerns ironed out now than to be raised at the next conference call? Second, I am perhaps alone in finding this text very hard to understand. I am not going to try to tidy it up and make it easier to understand because Kavouss has made it clear he does not want us to just do drafting changes. However, in my opinion, a “simple English” draft would be useful and would make our life easier in months to come. Third: on your comments on Alissa’s points, I would note: 3. The file naming proposal was made without opposition and has been followed by most people. It provides a way for us all to follow the train of events. 4. I actually think that views should be provided to the committee, not just to the chairs/vice chairs. I think that we had an agreement about working openly, so I shared Alissa’s concern about private exchanges with the committee’s officers. 5. I also do not understand what “any other mechanisms of consensus” means. I am none the wiser after the explanation. I thought it might be a way of saying that there would be another attempt to find consensus, but that doesn’t really fit the context. 6. Running a consensus process again might make sense if there is time. But in the text here, where we are at the point of running out of time, it does not make sense. A more pragmatic approach – will we have an acceptable proposal – seems to be more important. 7. And that gets me to a very important issue that you appear to be dismissing without discussion. I actually believe that the wording that I proposed is needed: if we overrule an operational community on a point that directly affects them, then you do not have a solution, no matter how wonderful our decision-making process. Proposals that might undermine the policy authority for ccTLDs (for example, by requiring them to adopt gTLD policies) would be totally unacceptable to the ccTLDs (and I would hope also to the government representatives, given the Tunis Agenda). I have seen Joe’s comments that “we cannot ignore the non operational communities and this language makes it seem like they are not relevant to consensus”: I do not think it is. My concern is more about a forced solution through a vote that just does not fit with the organisations that need to implement the outcomes. My guess is that NTIA would simply send the copy back and tell us to do it again. 8. I also failed to understand “consensus frameworks,” but feel a little more comfortable with the idea of a case-by-case approach to the particular issue and who is affected and – in the end – will the final proposal actually be a solution which will generally be accepted when we put it forward at the end of our work. General comments: while a lot of progress in understanding has been made by the small group, we all need to understand what we are trying to do and agree to it. I think both Alissa and I are struggling to develop that understanding. I attach a marked-up version of Alissa’s amendments. I look forward to a further round of discussions that try to get us to a final version. Thanks Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: 11 September 2014 19:37 To: Alissa Cooper Cc: Martin Boyle; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Alissa, I do not understand what we are doing here. If 30 people start to totally redraft the ddocument we never end the drafting process. Those who have not make any comments from 06 September should kindly understand that others made considerable efforts to have some degree of mutual understanding Allow me to reply to your comments one by one 1. Thanks everyone for the work that has been put into this. My comments and suggestions are attached. Couple of process points: No Comments from KA 2. * My understanding is that we intend as a group to finalize this document on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17. Comments from KA ,yes 3 .* Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in the next iteration we could go back tComments from KA ,yes o using the document naming convention established by Patrik. < https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docum ents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0> Comments from KA That procedure is not an approved way to name .that reflects views from one ICG.However, it is not important Couple of substantive points that are also highlighted in the attached: 4 * In Section 3, I believe members who will be absent from a call should provide their views in advance, if they wish, to the full ICG, not just the chair/vice-chairs. Comments from KA I understand that any views provided to chair and vice chairs should certainly be provided by chair or Vice chair(s) in the absence of the chair to the entire group but I can agree with the amendments as it brings more clarity to the text 5 * In Section 4(b), I do not understand what “any other mechanisms of consensus” means. Comments from KA Please note that ,at G11 informal meeting .at the begining people did not want to have any example.However, they suggested to give one possible example .However, some other people wished to include other examples Finally WE AGREED THAT OTHER EXAMPLES COULD / SHOULD BE EXPLORED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS The term " case by case basis" was the heart of the whole issue that you have unfortunately ignored it and thus the whole discussions of G11 IS OVERRULES BY YOU .I categorically disagree with that. In order to implement , on the one hand, the case by case apèproach, and on the other hand, not to overload the document with several examples, the term “any other mechanisms " as appropriate and according to the case was included . 6 * In Section 4(c), the second sentence of the Recommendation bullet seemed to require either running a consensus process twice, or it just repeated what was in the first sentence. I don’t think we want to run the same processes twice, so I deleted that sentence. Comments from KA Your understanding is right First it is tried to reach consensus once the issue is sufficient discussed In not ,every effort or utmost efforts should be made to explore ways and means other than those previously considered at the first round to acheive consensus 7 * In Section 4(c), I have reverted the language in the Recommendation example to the suggestion by Martin about directly affected communities being overruled. I think this very important edit was lost in the discussion last week. Comments from KA The issue is that people tries to over emphasize should be pointed to each group as , as a general rule the interests of all groups represented in ICG should be taken into account .Agin you wish to limit every thing to three operational communities from the outset whereas that approach should not be taken as general rules. Can you please identify the link 7association of each and evry grouip participating in ICG to the three operational communities that you pointing toward.It is difficult to singleout only secific group as such .However, at further stage ,we may be able to focus on a particular operational or oerating community 8 * In Section 4(c), I don’t understand what this means: "Chair and vice chairs are advised to consider other possible consensus frameworks in addressing the issues, as appropriate to the nature of the case.” What are other possible consensus frameworks? Comments from KA Part of the language is suggested by Wolf However, to reply you, It means that, should the above rounds of efforts were/ are exhausted ,chair and vice chairs ( you may add,together with intrested parties )are advised or should further explore other ways and means to identify other options 7 alternatives e.g. IETF consensus approach ,if the issue relates to the domain of activities of IETF .However, it was agreed that no such sopecific option / mechanism / alternative is referred to at this point of time rather leave it to the CASE BY CASE APPROACH I hope I have replied to your various comments General comment from KA Let us make every effort not to come back to square one .we did a lot of efforts to establish a great degree of understanding and that understanding needs to be retained Regards Kavouss
Martin: I agree that operational communities could get special mention as you suggest, but I think we also need to top that off with something like the consensus that we are seeking is inclusive of all stakeholder groups - or something that reinforces the nature of consensus in the same context. Joe On 9/11/2014 4:09 PM, Martin Boyle wrote:
Thanks Alissa for making a number of the comments that I was also drafting.
I too would like to preface my remarks with some general points.
First: that a little group got together and agreed a text in the margins of the meeting is a good way to work. However, the final text has to be approved by the committee. I was excluded from the discussion in Istanbul (as was Alissa), even though I think I had made it reasonably clear that I have a strong interest in the text. It is surely better to have concerns ironed out now than to be raised at the next conference call?
Second, I am perhaps alone in finding this text very hard to understand. I am not going to try to tidy it up and make it easier to understand because Kavouss has made it clear he does not want us to just do drafting changes. However, in my opinion, a "simple English" draft would be useful and would make our life easier in months to come.
Third: on your comments on Alissa's points, I would note:
3. The file naming proposal was made without opposition and has been followed by most people. It provides a way for us all to follow the train of events.
4. I actually think that views should be provided to the committee, not just to the chairs/vice chairs. I think that we had an agreement about working openly, so I shared Alissa's concern about private exchanges with the committee's officers.
5. I also do not understand what "any other mechanisms of consensus" means. I am none the wiser after the explanation. I thought it might be a way of saying that there would be another attempt to find consensus, but that doesn't really fit the context.
6. Running a consensus process again might make sense if there is time. But in the text here, where we are at the point of running out of time, it does not make sense. A more pragmatic approach -- will we have an acceptable proposal -- seems to be more important.
7. And that gets me to a very important issue that you appear to be dismissing without discussion. I actually believe that the wording that I proposed is needed: if we overrule an operational community on a point that directly affects them, then you do not have a solution, no matter how wonderful our decision-making process. Proposals that might undermine the policy authority for ccTLDs (for example, by requiring them to adopt gTLD policies) would be totally unacceptable to the ccTLDs (and I would hope also to the government representatives, given the Tunis Agenda).
I have seen Joe's comments that "we cannot ignore the non operational communities and this language makes it seem like they are not relevant to consensus": I do not think it is. My concern is more about a forced solution through a vote that just does not fit with the organisations that need to implement the outcomes. My guess is that NTIA would simply send the copy back and tell us to do it again.
8. I also failed to understand "consensus frameworks," but feel a little more comfortable with the idea of a case-by-case approach to the particular issue and who is affected and -- in the end -- will the final proposal actually be a solution which will generally be accepted when we put it forward at the end of our work.
General comments: while a lot of progress in understanding has been made by the small group, we all need to understand what we are trying to do and agree to it. I think both Alissa and I are struggling to develop that understanding.
I attach a marked-up version of Alissa's amendments. I look forward to a further round of discussions that try to get us to a final version.
Thanks
Martin
*From:*Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* 11 September 2014 19:37 *To:* Alissa Cooper *Cc:* Martin Boyle; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Alissa,
I do not understand what we are doing here.
If 30 people start to totally redraft the ddocument we never end the drafting process.
Those who have not make any comments from 06 September should kindly understand that others made considerable efforts to have some degree of mutual understanding
Allow me to reply to your comments one by one
1.
Thanks everyone for the work that has been put into this. My comments and suggestions are attached. Couple of process points:
No Comments from KA
2.
* My understanding is that we intend as a group to finalize this document on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17.
Comments from KA ,yes
3
.* Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in the next iteration we could go back tComments from KA ,yes o using the document naming convention established by Patrik. < https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docum ents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20documents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0>>
Comments from KA
That procedure is not an approved way to name .that reflects views from one ICG.However, it is not important
Couple of substantive points that are also highlighted in the attached:
4
* In Section 3, I believe members who will be absent from a call should provide their views in advance, if they wish, to the full ICG, not just the chair/vice-chairs.
Comments from KA
I understand that any views provided to chair and vice chairs should certainly be provided by chair or Vice chair(s) in the absence of the chair to the entire group but I can agree with the amendments as it brings more clarity to the text
5
* In Section 4(b), I do not understand what "any other mechanisms of consensus" means.
Comments from KA
Please note that ,at G11 informal meeting .at the begining people did not want to have any example.However, they suggested to give one possible example .However, some other people wished to include other examples
Finally WE AGREED THAT OTHER EXAMPLES COULD / SHOULD BE EXPLORED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS
The term " case by case basis" was the heart of the whole issue that you have unfortunately ignored it and thus the whole discussions of G11 IS OVERRULES BY YOU .I categorically disagree with that.
In order to implement , on the one hand, the case by case apèproach, and on the other hand, not to overload the document with several examples, the term "any other mechanisms " as appropriate and according to the case was included .
6 * In Section 4(c), the second sentence of the Recommendation bullet seemed to require either running a consensus process twice, or it just repeated what was in the first sentence. I don't think we want to run the same processes twice, so I deleted that sentence.
Comments from KA
Your understanding is right
First it is tried to reach consensus once the issue is sufficient discussed
In not ,every effort or utmost efforts should be made to explore ways and means other than those previously considered at the first round to acheive consensus
7 * In Section 4(c), I have reverted the language in the Recommendation example to the suggestion by Martin about directly affected communities being overruled. I think this very important edit was lost in the discussion last week.
Comments from KA
The issue is that people tries to over emphasize should be pointed to each group as , as a general rule the interests of all groups represented in ICG should be taken into account .Agin you wish to limit every thing to three operational communities from the outset whereas that approach should not be taken as general rules.
Can you please identify the link 7association of each and evry grouip participating in ICG to the three operational communities that you pointing toward.It is difficult to singleout only secific group as such .However, at further stage ,we may be able to focus on a particular operational or oerating community
8
* In Section 4(c), I don't understand what this means: "Chair and vice chairs are advised to consider other possible consensus frameworks in addressing the issues, as appropriate to the nature of the case." What are other possible consensus frameworks?
Comments from KA
Part of the language is suggested by Wolf
However, to reply you, It means that, should the above rounds of efforts were/ are exhausted ,chair and vice chairs ( you may add,together with intrested parties )are advised or should further explore other ways and means to identify other options 7 alternatives e.g. IETF consensus approach ,if the issue relates to the domain of activities of IETF .However, it was agreed that no such sopecific option / mechanism / alternative is referred to at this point of time rather leave it to the CASE BY CASE APPROACH
I hope I have replied to your various comments
General comment from KA
Let us make every effort not to come back to square one .we did a lot of efforts to establish a great degree of understanding and that understanding needs to be retained
Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Joe, that's helpful - I think it works for me. Thanks Martin Sent from my iPhone On 11 Sep 2014, at 21:32, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>> wrote: Martin: I agree that operational communities could get special mention as you suggest, but I think we also need to top that off with something like the consensus that we are seeking is inclusive of all stakeholder groups - or something that reinforces the nature of consensus in the same context. Joe On 9/11/2014 4:09 PM, Martin Boyle wrote: Thanks Alissa for making a number of the comments that I was also drafting. I too would like to preface my remarks with some general points. First: that a little group got together and agreed a text in the margins of the meeting is a good way to work. However, the final text has to be approved by the committee. I was excluded from the discussion in Istanbul (as was Alissa), even though I think I had made it reasonably clear that I have a strong interest in the text. It is surely better to have concerns ironed out now than to be raised at the next conference call? Second, I am perhaps alone in finding this text very hard to understand. I am not going to try to tidy it up and make it easier to understand because Kavouss has made it clear he does not want us to just do drafting changes. However, in my opinion, a “simple English” draft would be useful and would make our life easier in months to come. Third: on your comments on Alissa’s points, I would note: 3. The file naming proposal was made without opposition and has been followed by most people. It provides a way for us all to follow the train of events. 4. I actually think that views should be provided to the committee, not just to the chairs/vice chairs. I think that we had an agreement about working openly, so I shared Alissa’s concern about private exchanges with the committee’s officers. 5. I also do not understand what “any other mechanisms of consensus” means. I am none the wiser after the explanation. I thought it might be a way of saying that there would be another attempt to find consensus, but that doesn’t really fit the context. 6. Running a consensus process again might make sense if there is time. But in the text here, where we are at the point of running out of time, it does not make sense. A more pragmatic approach – will we have an acceptable proposal – seems to be more important. 7. And that gets me to a very important issue that you appear to be dismissing without discussion. I actually believe that the wording that I proposed is needed: if we overrule an operational community on a point that directly affects them, then you do not have a solution, no matter how wonderful our decision-making process. Proposals that might undermine the policy authority for ccTLDs (for example, by requiring them to adopt gTLD policies) would be totally unacceptable to the ccTLDs (and I would hope also to the government representatives, given the Tunis Agenda). I have seen Joe’s comments that “we cannot ignore the non operational communities and this language makes it seem like they are not relevant to consensus”: I do not think it is. My concern is more about a forced solution through a vote that just does not fit with the organisations that need to implement the outcomes. My guess is that NTIA would simply send the copy back and tell us to do it again. 8. I also failed to understand “consensus frameworks,” but feel a little more comfortable with the idea of a case-by-case approach to the particular issue and who is affected and – in the end – will the final proposal actually be a solution which will generally be accepted when we put it forward at the end of our work. General comments: while a lot of progress in understanding has been made by the small group, we all need to understand what we are trying to do and agree to it. I think both Alissa and I are struggling to develop that understanding. I attach a marked-up version of Alissa’s amendments. I look forward to a further round of discussions that try to get us to a final version. Thanks Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: 11 September 2014 19:37 To: Alissa Cooper Cc: Martin Boyle; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Alissa, I do not understand what we are doing here. If 30 people start to totally redraft the ddocument we never end the drafting process. Those who have not make any comments from 06 September should kindly understand that others made considerable efforts to have some degree of mutual understanding Allow me to reply to your comments one by one 1. Thanks everyone for the work that has been put into this. My comments and suggestions are attached. Couple of process points: No Comments from KA 2. * My understanding is that we intend as a group to finalize this document on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17. Comments from KA ,yes 3 .* Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in the next iteration we could go back tComments from KA ,yes o using the document naming convention established by Patrik. < https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docum ents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0<https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20documents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0>> Comments from KA That procedure is not an approved way to name .that reflects views from one ICG.However, it is not important Couple of substantive points that are also highlighted in the attached: 4 * In Section 3, I believe members who will be absent from a call should provide their views in advance, if they wish, to the full ICG, not just the chair/vice-chairs. Comments from KA I understand that any views provided to chair and vice chairs should certainly be provided by chair or Vice chair(s) in the absence of the chair to the entire group but I can agree with the amendments as it brings more clarity to the text 5 * In Section 4(b), I do not understand what “any other mechanisms of consensus” means. Comments from KA Please note that ,at G11 informal meeting .at the begining people did not want to have any example.However, they suggested to give one possible example .However, some other people wished to include other examples Finally WE AGREED THAT OTHER EXAMPLES COULD / SHOULD BE EXPLORED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS The term " case by case basis" was the heart of the whole issue that you have unfortunately ignored it and thus the whole discussions of G11 IS OVERRULES BY YOU .I categorically disagree with that. In order to implement , on the one hand, the case by case apèproach, and on the other hand, not to overload the document with several examples, the term “any other mechanisms " as appropriate and according to the case was included . 6 * In Section 4(c), the second sentence of the Recommendation bullet seemed to require either running a consensus process twice, or it just repeated what was in the first sentence. I don’t think we want to run the same processes twice, so I deleted that sentence. Comments from KA Your understanding is right First it is tried to reach consensus once the issue is sufficient discussed In not ,every effort or utmost efforts should be made to explore ways and means other than those previously considered at the first round to acheive consensus 7 * In Section 4(c), I have reverted the language in the Recommendation example to the suggestion by Martin about directly affected communities being overruled. I think this very important edit was lost in the discussion last week. Comments from KA The issue is that people tries to over emphasize should be pointed to each group as , as a general rule the interests of all groups represented in ICG should be taken into account .Agin you wish to limit every thing to three operational communities from the outset whereas that approach should not be taken as general rules. Can you please identify the link 7association of each and evry grouip participating in ICG to the three operational communities that you pointing toward.It is difficult to singleout only secific group as such .However, at further stage ,we may be able to focus on a particular operational or oerating community 8 * In Section 4(c), I don’t understand what this means: "Chair and vice chairs are advised to consider other possible consensus frameworks in addressing the issues, as appropriate to the nature of the case.” What are other possible consensus frameworks? Comments from KA Part of the language is suggested by Wolf However, to reply you, It means that, should the above rounds of efforts were/ are exhausted ,chair and vice chairs ( you may add,together with intrested parties )are advised or should further explore other ways and means to identify other options 7 alternatives e.g. IETF consensus approach ,if the issue relates to the domain of activities of IETF .However, it was agreed that no such sopecific option / mechanism / alternative is referred to at this point of time rather leave it to the CASE BY CASE APPROACH I hope I have replied to your various comments General comment from KA Let us make every effort not to come back to square one .we did a lot of efforts to establish a great degree of understanding and that understanding needs to be retained Regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Martin I agree with most of the things that you said. However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering. It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment. What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach. Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community We need to be general and cover every body's case Regards Kavouss 2014-09-11 22:09 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Thanks Alissa for making a number of the comments that I was also drafting.
I too would like to preface my remarks with some general points.
First: that a little group got together and agreed a text in the margins of the meeting is a good way to work. However, the final text has to be approved by the committee. I was excluded from the discussion in Istanbul (as was Alissa), even though I think I had made it reasonably clear that I have a strong interest in the text. It is surely better to have concerns ironed out now than to be raised at the next conference call?
Second, I am perhaps alone in finding this text very hard to understand. I am not going to try to tidy it up and make it easier to understand because Kavouss has made it clear he does not want us to just do drafting changes. However, in my opinion, a “simple English” draft would be useful and would make our life easier in months to come.
Third: on your comments on Alissa’s points, I would note:
3. The file naming proposal was made without opposition and has been followed by most people. It provides a way for us all to follow the train of events.
4. I actually think that views should be provided to the committee, not just to the chairs/vice chairs. I think that we had an agreement about working openly, so I shared Alissa’s concern about private exchanges with the committee’s officers.
5. I also do not understand what “any other mechanisms of consensus” means. I am none the wiser after the explanation. I thought it might be a way of saying that there would be another attempt to find consensus, but that doesn’t really fit the context.
6. Running a consensus process again might make sense if there is time. But in the text here, where we are at the point of running out of time, it does not make sense. A more pragmatic approach – will we have an acceptable proposal – seems to be more important.
7. And that gets me to a very important issue that you appear to be dismissing without discussion. I actually believe that the wording that I proposed is needed: if we overrule an operational community on a point that directly affects them, then you do not have a solution, no matter how wonderful our decision-making process. Proposals that might undermine the policy authority for ccTLDs (for example, by requiring them to adopt gTLD policies) would be totally unacceptable to the ccTLDs (and I would hope also to the government representatives, given the Tunis Agenda).
I have seen Joe’s comments that “we cannot ignore the non operational communities and this language makes it seem like they are not relevant to consensus”: I do not think it is. My concern is more about a forced solution through a vote that just does not fit with the organisations that need to implement the outcomes. My guess is that NTIA would simply send the copy back and tell us to do it again.
8. I also failed to understand “consensus frameworks,” but feel a little more comfortable with the idea of a case-by-case approach to the particular issue and who is affected and – in the end – will the final proposal actually be a solution which will generally be accepted when we put it forward at the end of our work.
General comments: while a lot of progress in understanding has been made by the small group, we all need to understand what we are trying to do and agree to it. I think both Alissa and I are struggling to develop that understanding.
I attach a marked-up version of Alissa’s amendments. I look forward to a further round of discussions that try to get us to a final version.
Thanks
Martin
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* 11 September 2014 19:37 *To:* Alissa Cooper *Cc:* Martin Boyle; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Alissa,
I do not understand what we are doing here.
If 30 people start to totally redraft the ddocument we never end the drafting process.
Those who have not make any comments from 06 September should kindly understand that others made considerable efforts to have some degree of mutual understanding
Allow me to reply to your comments one by one
1.
Thanks everyone for the work that has been put into this. My comments and suggestions are attached. Couple of process points:
No Comments from KA
2.
* My understanding is that we intend as a group to finalize this document on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17.
Comments from KA ,yes
3
.* Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in the next iteration we could go back tComments from KA ,yes o using the document naming convention established by Patrik. < https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docum ents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20documen...>
Comments from KA
That procedure is not an approved way to name .that reflects views from one ICG.However, it is not important
Couple of substantive points that are also highlighted in the attached:
4
* In Section 3, I believe members who will be absent from a call should provide their views in advance, if they wish, to the full ICG, not just the chair/vice-chairs.
Comments from KA
I understand that any views provided to chair and vice chairs should certainly be provided by chair or Vice chair(s) in the absence of the chair to the entire group but I can agree with the amendments as it brings more clarity to the text
5
* In Section 4(b), I do not understand what “any other mechanisms of consensus” means.
Comments from KA
Please note that ,at G11 informal meeting .at the begining people did not want to have any example.However, they suggested to give one possible example .However, some other people wished to include other examples
Finally WE AGREED THAT OTHER EXAMPLES COULD / SHOULD BE EXPLORED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS
The term " case by case basis" was the heart of the whole issue that you have unfortunately ignored it and thus the whole discussions of G11 IS OVERRULES BY YOU .I categorically disagree with that.
In order to implement , on the one hand, the case by case apèproach, and on the other hand, not to overload the document with several examples, the term “any other mechanisms " as appropriate and according to the case was included .
6 * In Section 4(c), the second sentence of the Recommendation bullet seemed to require either running a consensus process twice, or it just repeated what was in the first sentence. I don’t think we want to run the same processes twice, so I deleted that sentence.
Comments from KA
Your understanding is right
First it is tried to reach consensus once the issue is sufficient discussed
In not ,every effort or utmost efforts should be made to explore ways and means other than those previously considered at the first round to acheive consensus
7 * In Section 4(c), I have reverted the language in the Recommendation example to the suggestion by Martin about directly affected communities being overruled. I think this very important edit was lost in the discussion last week.
Comments from KA
The issue is that people tries to over emphasize should be pointed to each group as , as a general rule the interests of all groups represented in ICG should be taken into account .Agin you wish to limit every thing to three operational communities from the outset whereas that approach should not be taken as general rules.
Can you please identify the link 7association of each and evry grouip participating in ICG to the three operational communities that you pointing toward.It is difficult to singleout only secific group as such .However, at further stage ,we may be able to focus on a particular operational or oerating community
8
* In Section 4(c), I don’t understand what this means: "Chair and vice chairs are advised to consider other possible consensus frameworks in addressing the issues, as appropriate to the nature of the case.” What are other possible consensus frameworks?
Comments from KA
Part of the language is suggested by Wolf
However, to reply you, It means that, should the above rounds of efforts were/ are exhausted ,chair and vice chairs ( you may add,together with intrested parties )are advised or should further explore other ways and means to identify other options 7 alternatives e.g. IETF consensus approach ,if the issue relates to the domain of activities of IETF .However, it was agreed that no such sopecific option / mechanism / alternative is referred to at this point of time rather leave it to the CASE BY CASE APPROACH
I hope I have replied to your various comments
General comment from KA
Let us make every effort not to come back to square one .we did a lot of efforts to establish a great degree of understanding and that understanding needs to be retained
Regards
Kavouss
Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns. I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion. Cheers Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: 11 September 2014 21:34 To: Martin Boyle Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Martin I agree with most of the things that you said. However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering. It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment. What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach. Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community We need to be general and cover every body's case Regards Kavouss
Martin Thank you, You took your British pen and proposed a British style new version with which I have no major problem ( BY THE WAY WHAT IS MAJOR ,I DO NOT TELL YOU, SINCE YOU DIS NOT DESCRIBE WHAT IS SMALL MINORITY ). However, As I explained many times I would like you kindly describe what is small minority .Until the time that this question is not answered, I have serious difficulties to accept such a vague term due to the fact that it would turned against a particular group if other groups decide to penalize that group PLEASE KINDLY EXPLAIN QUANTITATIVELY OR GROUPWISE WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SMALL MINORITY how many members out of 30 or how many communities out of 13 communities that was described in one output message ? Secondly under second bullet relating to Recommandation, it is indicated Quote - "The decisions addressed in this section [AC1] <file:///C:/Users/guestlib/Downloads/ICG%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Decision%20Making%20V1%20New%20Roundstarting%2008%20Sept%20+%20WUK%2010%20Sep%20docxKA10%20Sep%20WUK%2011%20SeptKA%2011Sep%20CLEAN%20VERSIPON%20alc%20+%20mb%20+%20alc%20+%20mb.docx#_msocom_1> relate to the handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s) AND NOT DECISIONS TO APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL RELATED" - Unquote - Please kindly explain WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "The decisions addressed in this section" - WHAT ARE THE NATURE OF THOSE DECISIOS? ire they dealing with sending the final proposal to NTIA? - if NOT WHAT THEY ARE? - Then please advise how and what approach will be used for cases DECISIONS TO be made for APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL RELATED"? - What are those cases - I am sorry the whole document is vague, unclear and ambigeous - Please use your nice pencil /pen and properly and convincingly reply to my question - Regards - Kavouss ------------------------------ [AC1] <file:///C:/Users/guestlib/Downloads/ICG%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Decision%20Making%20V1%20New%20Roundstarting%2008%20Sept%20+%20WUK%2010%20Sep%20docxKA10%20Sep%20WUK%2011%20SeptKA%2011Sep%20CLEAN%20VERSIPON%20alc%20+%20mb%20+%20alc%20+%20mb.docx#_msoanchor_1>Both types of decisions are « above » -- but here we’re only focusing on Section 4(b) decisions. [AC2] <file:///C:/Users/guestlib/Downloads/ICG%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Decision%20Making%20V1%20New%20Roundstarting%2008%20Sept%20+%20WUK%2010%20Sep%20docxKA10%20Sep%20WUK%2011%20SeptKA%2011Sep%20CLEAN%20VERSIPON%20alc%20+%20mb%20+%20alc%20+%20mb.docx#_msoanchor_2>I believe Manal’s point here, which I think is critical, is that we will not be making decisions about proposal content. So, we should not say that we will be handling those decisions on a case-by-case basis, because we will not be handling them at all. [MB3] <file:///C:/Users/guestlib/Downloads/ICG%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Decision%20Making%20V1%20New%20Roundstarting%2008%20Sept%20+%20WUK%2010%20Sep%20docxKA10%20Sep%20WUK%2011%20SeptKA%2011Sep%20CLEAN%20VERSIPON%20alc%20+%20mb%20+%20alc%20+%20mb.docx#_msoanchor_3>Fully agree r b 2014-09-12 14:15 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns.
I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion.
Cheers
Martin
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* 11 September 2014 21:34 *To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Martin
I agree with most of the things that you said.
However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering.
It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment.
What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others
I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach.
Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin
SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish
However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community
We need to be general and cover every body's case
Regards
Kavouss
Dear Kavouss, I just edited to try to remove the problems I had with the draft, which was what you asked me to do. I did not try to describe what a small minority might be. But, unqualified, a minority for this group means 14 people not agreeing: the term needs to be qualified. How: I am not sure I’d want to define this up front. But I would note that I would count all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant minority. Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority if the issue was one that affected end users. It’s the other side of my point that the operational communities need to be comfortable with the bits that affect their service from the IANA operator. It is also associated with my antipathy to voting. Voting is a blunt tool: we need to consider the consequences that we have just ignored someone, or a small group of people. Hence we should not go there until we understand what we are dealing with. I’m not going to be drawn. The bit you quote (“The decisions addressed in this section relate to the handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s)”) is actually the first bullet in 4.b. Alissa picked this up, but she explained why “above-mentioned” was not helpful and suggested wording. It clarifies that we are dealing with “all other decisions.” The section is 4.b., which could, if you want to be pedantic about it, be put in brackets after the word “section.” My amendment was to replace the word “disapproval” (which is not the opposite of approval in this case) with rejection. The point (as I understood the intention of the original text) was that the ICG does not have the role of rejecting proposals because of the content, something that Manal picked up. This is an important point, so one I want to make sure is crystal clear. What do we turn down? I think it might be because the process was flawed (it was not an inclusive process or there was a lot of opposition) or because it really won’t work. Again I’m not sure I see value in trying to enumerate the reasons – won’t we know it when we see it? While looking for the text you wanted me to clarify, I noticed a typo in 4.c. 2nd bullet (recommendation): in the text I added I typed shd when I should have typed should! I’ll update the text in drop box. Cheers Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: 12 September 2014 14:20 To: Martin Boyle Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Martin Thank you, You took your British pen and proposed a British style new version with which I have no major problem ( BY THE WAY WHAT IS MAJOR ,I DO NOT TELL YOU, SINCE YOU DIS NOT DESCRIBE WHAT IS SMALL MINORITY ). However, As I explained many times I would like you kindly describe what is small minority .Until the time that this question is not answered, I have serious difficulties to accept such a vague term due to the fact that it would turned against a particular group if other groups decide to penalize that group PLEASE KINDLY EXPLAIN QUANTITATIVELY OR GROUPWISE WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SMALL MINORITY how many members out of 30 or how many communities out of 13 communities that was described in one output message ? Secondly under second bullet relating to Recommandation, it is indicated Quote · "The decisions addressed in this section [AC1]<file:///C:\Users\guestlib\Downloads\ICG%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Decision%20Making%20V1%20New%20Roundstarting%2008%20Sept%20+%20WUK%2010%20Sep%20docxKA10%20Sep%20WUK%2011%20SeptKA%2011Sep%20CLEAN%20VERSIPON%20alc%20+%20mb%20+%20alc%20+%20mb.docx#_msocom_1> relate to the handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s) AND NOT DECISIONS TO APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL RELATED" · Unquote · Please kindly explain WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "The decisions addressed in this section" · WHAT ARE THE NATURE OF THOSE DECISIOS? ire they dealing with sending the final proposal to NTIA? · if NOT WHAT THEY ARE? · Then please advise how and what approach will be used for cases DECISIONS TO be made for APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL RELATED"? · What are those cases · I am sorry the whole document is vague, unclear and ambigeous · Please use your nice pencil /pen and properly and convincingly reply to my question · Regards · Kavouss ________________________________ [AC1]<file:///C:\Users\guestlib\Downloads\ICG%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Decision%20Making%20V1%20New%20Roundstarting%2008%20Sept%20+%20WUK%2010%20Sep%20docxKA10%20Sep%20WUK%2011%20SeptKA%2011Sep%20CLEAN%20VERSIPON%20alc%20+%20mb%20+%20alc%20+%20mb.docx#_msoanchor_1>Both types of decisions are « above » -- but here we’re only focusing on Section 4(b) decisions. [AC2]<file:///C:\Users\guestlib\Downloads\ICG%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Decision%20Making%20V1%20New%20Roundstarting%2008%20Sept%20+%20WUK%2010%20Sep%20docxKA10%20Sep%20WUK%2011%20SeptKA%2011Sep%20CLEAN%20VERSIPON%20alc%20+%20mb%20+%20alc%20+%20mb.docx#_msoanchor_2>I believe Manal’s point here, which I think is critical, is that we will not be making decisions about proposal content. So, we should not say that we will be handling those decisions on a case-by-case basis, because we will not be handling them at all. [MB3]<file:///C:\Users\guestlib\Downloads\ICG%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Decision%20Making%20V1%20New%20Roundstarting%2008%20Sept%20+%20WUK%2010%20Sep%20docxKA10%20Sep%20WUK%2011%20SeptKA%2011Sep%20CLEAN%20VERSIPON%20alc%20+%20mb%20+%20alc%20+%20mb.docx#_msoanchor_3>Fully agree r b 2014-09-12 14:15 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>>: Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns. I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion. Cheers Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: 11 September 2014 21:34 To: Martin Boyle Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Martin I agree with most of the things that you said. However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering. It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment. What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach. Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community We need to be general and cover every body's case Regards Kavouss
Dear Martin, Gradually we are walking towards each other. We are now much closer than before. One thing that I noticed in your mail is the following: Your reply in this message is Quote 1. " I would count all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant minority. Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority " Unqoute If your views that "all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant minority. Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority " Thus the above-mentioned groups( GAC members in toto or ALAC+ ICC-BASIS ) , if either of the two objects to an issue their objections ( objection of GAC or objection of ALAC+ICC-BASIS) WILL NOT BE are not considered AS minority objection but significant objection ,then I agree with you provided that all ICG MEMEBRS CONFIRM THAT UNDERSTANDING 2.Moreover, ,I still wish to clearly refer to Case by case approach in the text. Please while assuring me of agreement of all ICGmembers to our ( both of us ) undertanding of SIGNIFICAN MINORITY, point me towards the area in which your text refrred to case by case approach/concept And I thank you very much for that Kavouss becoming 2014-09-12 17:35 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Dear Kavouss,
I just edited to try to remove the problems I had with the draft, which was what you asked me to do.
I did not try to describe what a small minority might be. But, unqualified, a minority for this group means 14 people not agreeing: the term needs to be qualified. How: I am not sure I’d want to define this up front. But I would note that I would count all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant minority. Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority if the issue was one that affected end users. It’s the other side of my point that the operational communities need to be comfortable with the bits that affect their service from the IANA operator.
It is also associated with my antipathy to voting. Voting is a blunt tool: we need to consider the consequences that we have just ignored someone, or a small group of people. Hence we should not go there until we understand what we are dealing with. I’m not going to be drawn.
The bit you quote (“The decisions addressed in this section relate to the handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s)”) is actually the first bullet in 4.b. Alissa picked this up, but she explained why “above-mentioned” was not helpful and suggested wording. It clarifies that we are dealing with “all other decisions.” The section is 4.b., which could, if you want to be pedantic about it, be put in brackets after the word “section.” My amendment was to replace the word “disapproval” (which is not the opposite of approval in this case) with rejection. The point (as I understood the intention of the original text) was that the ICG does not have the role of rejecting proposals because of the content, something that Manal picked up. This is an important point, so one I want to make sure is crystal clear.
What do we turn down? I think it might be because the process was flawed (it was not an inclusive process or there was a lot of opposition) or because it really won’t work. Again I’m not sure I see value in trying to enumerate the reasons – won’t we know it when we see it?
While looking for the text you wanted me to clarify, I noticed a typo in 4.c. 2nd bullet (recommendation): in the text I added I typed shd when I should have typed should! I’ll update the text in drop box.
Cheers
Martin
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* 12 September 2014 14:20
*To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Martin
Thank you,
You took your British pen and proposed a British style new version with which I have no major problem ( BY THE WAY WHAT IS MAJOR ,I DO NOT TELL YOU, SINCE YOU DIS NOT DESCRIBE WHAT IS SMALL MINORITY ).
However, As I explained many times I would like you kindly describe what is small minority .Until the time that this question is not answered, I have serious difficulties to accept such a vague term due to the fact that it would turned against a particular group if other groups decide to penalize that group
PLEASE KINDLY EXPLAIN QUANTITATIVELY OR GROUPWISE WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SMALL MINORITY
how many members out of 30 or how many communities out of 13 communities that was described in one output message ?
Secondly under second bullet relating to Recommandation, it is indicated
Quote
· "The decisions addressed in this section [AC1] relate to the handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s) AND NOT DECISIONS TO APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL RELATED"
· Unquote
· Please kindly explain WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "The decisions addressed in this section"
· WHAT ARE THE NATURE OF THOSE DECISIOS? ire they dealing with sending the final proposal to NTIA?
· if NOT WHAT THEY ARE?
· Then please advise how and what approach will be used for cases DECISIONS TO be made for APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL RELATED"?
· What are those cases
· I am sorry the whole document is vague, unclear and ambigeous
· Please use your nice pencil /pen and properly and convincingly reply to my question
· Regards
· Kavouss ------------------------------
[AC1]Both types of decisions are « above » -- but here we’re only focusing on Section 4(b) decisions.
[AC2]I believe Manal’s point here, which I think is critical, is that we will not be making decisions about proposal content. So, we should not say that we will be handling those decisions on a case-by-case basis, because we will not be handling them at all.
[MB3]Fully agree
r b
2014-09-12 14:15 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns.
I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion.
Cheers
Martin
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* 11 September 2014 21:34 *To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Martin
I agree with most of the things that you said.
However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering.
It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment.
What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others
I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach.
Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin
SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish
However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community
We need to be general and cover every body's case
Regards
Kavouss
Dear Kavouss, 1. I am not proposing we use the term significant minority, but was trying to explain what a small minority might mean depending on the circumstances. By the way, I would pick up on your quotation from my e-mail: I was trying possible examples and I also pointed out that the context of the opposition was also important. I do not know whether other ICG members would agree with me on the analysis: the point is whether we can use the qualifier “small.” Just saying a minority is not acceptable, for reasons I’ve tried to explain. 2. I do not think the term case-by-case is needed as the concept is covered in a good number of places in the text. It is probably accidental that the term disappeared from the text because neither Alissa nor I understood what the sentence they were in actually meant. If you really are attached to using that phrase somewhere, it could be in 4.b. 1st bullet, re-written as “…and not decisions related to approval/rejection of content of the proposals. The approach to making the final decision where there is no consensus needs to be handled on a case by case basis.” An alternative might be under 4.c. third paragraph (deleted by me), to replace it with, “Chair and vice chairs should assess when it might be appropriate to conclude the discussion based on the nature of the issue and the outstanding objections. This might need to be done on a case by case basis and in discussion with the members of the ICG.” As I said, I think it is covered, so I leave it to you to decide if you want the reference (and which one): paste it into the document and issue a new and cleaned up version so we have a reasonably stable version for Wednesday. Thanks Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: 12 September 2014 17:01 To: Martin Boyle Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear Martin, Gradually we are walking towards each other. We are now much closer than before. One thing that I noticed in your mail is the following: Your reply in this message is Quote 1. " I would count all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant minority. Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority " Unqoute If your views that "all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant minority. Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority " Thus the above-mentioned groups( GAC members in toto or ALAC+ ICC-BASIS ) , if either of the two objects to an issue their objections ( objection of GAC or objection of ALAC+ICC-BASIS) WILL NOT BE are not considered AS minority objection but significant objection ,then I agree with you provided that all ICG MEMEBRS CONFIRM THAT UNDERSTANDING 2.Moreover, ,I still wish to clearly refer to Case by case approach in the text. Please while assuring me of agreement of all ICGmembers to our ( both of us ) undertanding of SIGNIFICAN MINORITY, point me towards the area in which your text refrred to case by case approach/concept And I thank you very much for that Kavouss becoming 2014-09-12 17:35 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>>: Dear Kavouss, I just edited to try to remove the problems I had with the draft, which was what you asked me to do. I did not try to describe what a small minority might be. But, unqualified, a minority for this group means 14 people not agreeing: the term needs to be qualified. How: I am not sure I’d want to define this up front. But I would note that I would count all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant minority. Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority if the issue was one that affected end users. It’s the other side of my point that the operational communities need to be comfortable with the bits that affect their service from the IANA operator. It is also associated with my antipathy to voting. Voting is a blunt tool: we need to consider the consequences that we have just ignored someone, or a small group of people. Hence we should not go there until we understand what we are dealing with. I’m not going to be drawn. The bit you quote (“The decisions addressed in this section relate to the handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s)”) is actually the first bullet in 4.b. Alissa picked this up, but she explained why “above-mentioned” was not helpful and suggested wording. It clarifies that we are dealing with “all other decisions.” The section is 4.b., which could, if you want to be pedantic about it, be put in brackets after the word “section.” My amendment was to replace the word “disapproval” (which is not the opposite of approval in this case) with rejection. The point (as I understood the intention of the original text) was that the ICG does not have the role of rejecting proposals because of the content, something that Manal picked up. This is an important point, so one I want to make sure is crystal clear. What do we turn down? I think it might be because the process was flawed (it was not an inclusive process or there was a lot of opposition) or because it really won’t work. Again I’m not sure I see value in trying to enumerate the reasons – won’t we know it when we see it? While looking for the text you wanted me to clarify, I noticed a typo in 4.c. 2nd bullet (recommendation): in the text I added I typed shd when I should have typed should! I’ll update the text in drop box. Cheers Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: 12 September 2014 14:20 To: Martin Boyle Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Martin Thank you, You took your British pen and proposed a British style new version with which I have no major problem ( BY THE WAY WHAT IS MAJOR ,I DO NOT TELL YOU, SINCE YOU DIS NOT DESCRIBE WHAT IS SMALL MINORITY ). However, As I explained many times I would like you kindly describe what is small minority .Until the time that this question is not answered, I have serious difficulties to accept such a vague term due to the fact that it would turned against a particular group if other groups decide to penalize that group PLEASE KINDLY EXPLAIN QUANTITATIVELY OR GROUPWISE WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SMALL MINORITY how many members out of 30 or how many communities out of 13 communities that was described in one output message ? Secondly under second bullet relating to Recommandation, it is indicated Quote • "The decisions addressed in this section [AC1] relate to the handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s) AND NOT DECISIONS TO APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL RELATED" • Unquote • Please kindly explain WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "The decisions addressed in this section" • WHAT ARE THE NATURE OF THOSE DECISIOS? ire they dealing with sending the final proposal to NTIA? • if NOT WHAT THEY ARE? • Then please advise how and what approach will be used for cases DECISIONS TO be made for APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL RELATED"? • What are those cases • I am sorry the whole document is vague, unclear and ambigeous • Please use your nice pencil /pen and properly and convincingly reply to my question • Regards • Kavouss ________________________________ [AC1]Both types of decisions are « above » -- but here we’re only focusing on Section 4(b) decisions. [AC2]I believe Manal’s point here, which I think is critical, is that we will not be making decisions about proposal content. So, we should not say that we will be handling those decisions on a case-by-case basis, because we will not be handling them at all. [MB3]Fully agree r b 2014-09-12 14:15 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>>: Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns. I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion. Cheers Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: 11 September 2014 21:34 To: Martin Boyle Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Martin I agree with most of the things that you said. However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering. It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment. What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach. Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community We need to be general and cover every body's case Regards Kavouss
Dear Martin Thank you again Your explanation was helpful as usual We are more or less on the same wavelength . As for refernce to Case by Case approach or concept,I prefer the first option that you proposed i.e, para 4.b. 1st bullet, to be re-written ( by you) as “…and not decisions related to approval/rejection of content of the proposals( emphasis to be made whether we mean proposal received from various communities, or proposal to be sent to NTIA ). The approach to making the final decision where there is no consensus needs to be handled on a case by case basis.”PLS ADD the following WITH A VIEW TO REACH CONSENSUS mARTIN I wish to point out and even emphasize that I AM FULLY IN FAVOUR OF REACHING CONSENSUS BY ALL MEANS EVEN IF WE MAY BE PUSHED TO REEXAMINE THE CASE USING DIFFERENT APPROACH/MECHANISM ....( Alissa may not agree but we should do our utmost effort to be united in reaching consensus. I also request you to kindly include your example that I have quoted from your your message ( GAC or ALAC + ICC BASIS) in a footnote to * small minority *.that further clarify the matter and provide me an assurance that we all understand what we mean by significan or samall miniriy Please kindly amend your text and send me a copy of the clean text in word format Regards Kavouss 2014-09-12 19:03 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Dear Kavouss,
1. I am not proposing we use the term significant minority, but was trying to explain what a small minority might mean depending on the circumstances.
By the way, I would pick up on your quotation from my e-mail: I was trying possible examples and I also pointed out that the context of the opposition was also important. I do not know whether other ICG members would agree with me on the analysis: the point is whether we can use the qualifier “small.” Just saying a minority is not acceptable, for reasons I’ve tried to explain.
2. I do not think the term case-by-case is needed as the concept is covered in a good number of places in the text. It is probably accidental that the term disappeared from the text because neither Alissa nor I understood what the sentence they were in actually meant.
If you really are attached to using that phrase somewhere, it could be in 4.b. 1st bullet, re-written as “…and not decisions related to approval/rejection of content of the proposals. The approach to making the final decision where there is no consensus needs to be handled on a case by case basis.”
An alternative might be under 4.c. third paragraph (deleted by me), to replace it with, “Chair and vice chairs should assess when it might be appropriate to conclude the discussion based on the nature of the issue and the outstanding objections. This might need to be done on a case by case basis and in discussion with the members of the ICG.”
As I said, I think it is covered, so I leave it to you to decide if you want the reference (and which one): paste it into the document and issue a new and cleaned up version so we have a reasonably stable version for Wednesday.
Thanks
Martin
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* 12 September 2014 17:01
*To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Martin,
Gradually we are walking towards each other.
We are now much closer than before.
One thing that I noticed in your mail is the following:
Your reply in this message is
Quote
1. " I would count all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant minority. Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority "
Unqoute
If your views that "all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant minority. Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority " Thus the above-mentioned groups( GAC members in toto or ALAC+ ICC-BASIS ) , if either of the two objects to an issue their objections ( objection of GAC or objection of ALAC+ICC-BASIS) WILL NOT BE are not considered AS minority objection but significant objection ,then I agree with you provided that all ICG MEMEBRS CONFIRM THAT UNDERSTANDING
2.Moreover, ,I still wish to clearly refer to Case by case approach in the text.
Please while assuring me of agreement of all ICGmembers to our ( both of us ) undertanding of SIGNIFICAN MINORITY, point me towards the area in which your text refrred to case by case approach/concept
And I thank you very much for that
Kavouss
becoming
2014-09-12 17:35 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Dear Kavouss,
I just edited to try to remove the problems I had with the draft, which was what you asked me to do.
I did not try to describe what a small minority might be. But, unqualified, a minority for this group means 14 people not agreeing: the term needs to be qualified. How: I am not sure I’d want to define this up front. But I would note that I would count all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant minority. Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority if the issue was one that affected end users. It’s the other side of my point that the operational communities need to be comfortable with the bits that affect their service from the IANA operator.
It is also associated with my antipathy to voting. Voting is a blunt tool: we need to consider the consequences that we have just ignored someone, or a small group of people. Hence we should not go there until we understand what we are dealing with. I’m not going to be drawn.
The bit you quote (“The decisions addressed in this section relate to the handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s)”) is actually the first bullet in 4.b. Alissa picked this up, but she explained why “above-mentioned” was not helpful and suggested wording. It clarifies that we are dealing with “all other decisions.” The section is 4.b., which could, if you want to be pedantic about it, be put in brackets after the word “section.” My amendment was to replace the word “disapproval” (which is not the opposite of approval in this case) with rejection. The point (as I understood the intention of the original text) was that the ICG does not have the role of rejecting proposals because of the content, something that Manal picked up. This is an important point, so one I want to make sure is crystal clear.
What do we turn down? I think it might be because the process was flawed (it was not an inclusive process or there was a lot of opposition) or because it really won’t work. Again I’m not sure I see value in trying to enumerate the reasons – won’t we know it when we see it?
While looking for the text you wanted me to clarify, I noticed a typo in 4.c. 2nd bullet (recommendation): in the text I added I typed shd when I should have typed should! I’ll update the text in drop box.
Cheers
Martin
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* 12 September 2014 14:20
*To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Martin
Thank you,
You took your British pen and proposed a British style new version with which I have no major problem ( BY THE WAY WHAT IS MAJOR ,I DO NOT TELL YOU, SINCE YOU DIS NOT DESCRIBE WHAT IS SMALL MINORITY ).
However, As I explained many times I would like you kindly describe what is small minority .Until the time that this question is not answered, I have serious difficulties to accept such a vague term due to the fact that it would turned against a particular group if other groups decide to penalize that group
PLEASE KINDLY EXPLAIN QUANTITATIVELY OR GROUPWISE WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SMALL MINORITY
how many members out of 30 or how many communities out of 13 communities that was described in one output message ?
Secondly under second bullet relating to Recommandation, it is indicated
Quote
· "The decisions addressed in this section [AC1] relate to the handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s) AND NOT DECISIONS TO APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL RELATED"
· Unquote
· Please kindly explain WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "The decisions addressed in this section"
· WHAT ARE THE NATURE OF THOSE DECISIOS? ire they dealing with sending the final proposal to NTIA?
· if NOT WHAT THEY ARE?
· Then please advise how and what approach will be used for cases DECISIONS TO be made for APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL RELATED"?
· What are those cases
· I am sorry the whole document is vague, unclear and ambigeous
· Please use your nice pencil /pen and properly and convincingly reply to my question
· Regards
· Kavouss ------------------------------
[AC1]Both types of decisions are « above » -- but here we’re only focusing on Section 4(b) decisions.
[AC2]I believe Manal’s point here, which I think is critical, is that we will not be making decisions about proposal content. So, we should not say that we will be handling those decisions on a case-by-case basis, because we will not be handling them at all.
[MB3]Fully agree
r b
2014-09-12 14:15 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns.
I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion.
Cheers
Martin
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* 11 September 2014 21:34 *To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Martin
I agree with most of the things that you said.
However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering.
It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment.
What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others
I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach.
Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin
SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish
However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community
We need to be general and cover every body's case
Regards
Kavouss
Dear Kavouss, Sorry, I won’t have the time to do this before Sunday or Monday. And it might be as well to give 24 hours in case there are any more views before posting again. I did explain why used examples. However, I do not agree that we quote examples – whether in a footnote or in the text. As I read Alissa’s input, I think she is as concerned about ensuring consensus as I am – in fact I find I am very much in line with her views. Perhaps you might read her input again. MB From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: 12 September 2014 19:22 To: Martin Boyle Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear Martin Thank you again Your explanation was helpful as usual We are more or less on the same wavelength . As for refernce to Case by Case approach or concept,I prefer the first option that you proposed i.e, para 4.b. 1st bullet, to be re-written ( by you) as “…and not decisions related to approval/rejection of content of the proposals( emphasis to be made whether we mean proposal received from various communities, or proposal to be sent to NTIA ). The approach to making the final decision where there is no consensus needs to be handled on a case by case basis.”PLS ADD the following WITH A VIEW TO REACH CONSENSUS mARTIN I wish to point out and even emphasize that I AM FULLY IN FAVOUR OF REACHING CONSENSUS BY ALL MEANS EVEN IF WE MAY BE PUSHED TO REEXAMINE THE CASE USING DIFFERENT APPROACH/MECHANISM ....( Alissa may not agree but we should do our utmost effort to be united in reaching consensus. I also request you to kindly include your example that I have quoted from your your message ( GAC or ALAC + ICC BASIS) in a footnote to * small minority *.that further clarify the matter and provide me an assurance that we all understand what we mean by significan or samall miniriy Please kindly amend your text and send me a copy of the clean text in word format Regards Kavouss 2014-09-12 19:03 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>>: Dear Kavouss, 1. I am not proposing we use the term significant minority, but was trying to explain what a small minority might mean depending on the circumstances. By the way, I would pick up on your quotation from my e-mail: I was trying possible examples and I also pointed out that the context of the opposition was also important. I do not know whether other ICG members would agree with me on the analysis: the point is whether we can use the qualifier “small.” Just saying a minority is not acceptable, for reasons I’ve tried to explain. 2. I do not think the term case-by-case is needed as the concept is covered in a good number of places in the text. It is probably accidental that the term disappeared from the text because neither Alissa nor I understood what the sentence they were in actually meant. If you really are attached to using that phrase somewhere, it could be in 4.b. 1st bullet, re-written as “…and not decisions related to approval/rejection of content of the proposals. The approach to making the final decision where there is no consensus needs to be handled on a case by case basis.” An alternative might be under 4.c. third paragraph (deleted by me), to replace it with, “Chair and vice chairs should assess when it might be appropriate to conclude the discussion based on the nature of the issue and the outstanding objections. This might need to be done on a case by case basis and in discussion with the members of the ICG.” As I said, I think it is covered, so I leave it to you to decide if you want the reference (and which one): paste it into the document and issue a new and cleaned up version so we have a reasonably stable version for Wednesday. Thanks Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: 12 September 2014 17:01 To: Martin Boyle Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear Martin, Gradually we are walking towards each other. We are now much closer than before. One thing that I noticed in your mail is the following: Your reply in this message is Quote 1. " I would count all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant minority. Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority " Unqoute If your views that "all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant minority. Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority " Thus the above-mentioned groups( GAC members in toto or ALAC+ ICC-BASIS ) , if either of the two objects to an issue their objections ( objection of GAC or objection of ALAC+ICC-BASIS) WILL NOT BE are not considered AS minority objection but significant objection ,then I agree with you provided that all ICG MEMEBRS CONFIRM THAT UNDERSTANDING 2.Moreover, ,I still wish to clearly refer to Case by case approach in the text. Please while assuring me of agreement of all ICGmembers to our ( both of us ) undertanding of SIGNIFICAN MINORITY, point me towards the area in which your text refrred to case by case approach/concept And I thank you very much for that Kavouss becoming 2014-09-12 17:35 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>>: Dear Kavouss, I just edited to try to remove the problems I had with the draft, which was what you asked me to do. I did not try to describe what a small minority might be. But, unqualified, a minority for this group means 14 people not agreeing: the term needs to be qualified. How: I am not sure I’d want to define this up front. But I would note that I would count all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant minority. Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority if the issue was one that affected end users. It’s the other side of my point that the operational communities need to be comfortable with the bits that affect their service from the IANA operator. It is also associated with my antipathy to voting. Voting is a blunt tool: we need to consider the consequences that we have just ignored someone, or a small group of people. Hence we should not go there until we understand what we are dealing with. I’m not going to be drawn. The bit you quote (“The decisions addressed in this section relate to the handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s)”) is actually the first bullet in 4.b. Alissa picked this up, but she explained why “above-mentioned” was not helpful and suggested wording. It clarifies that we are dealing with “all other decisions.” The section is 4.b., which could, if you want to be pedantic about it, be put in brackets after the word “section.” My amendment was to replace the word “disapproval” (which is not the opposite of approval in this case) with rejection. The point (as I understood the intention of the original text) was that the ICG does not have the role of rejecting proposals because of the content, something that Manal picked up. This is an important point, so one I want to make sure is crystal clear. What do we turn down? I think it might be because the process was flawed (it was not an inclusive process or there was a lot of opposition) or because it really won’t work. Again I’m not sure I see value in trying to enumerate the reasons – won’t we know it when we see it? While looking for the text you wanted me to clarify, I noticed a typo in 4.c. 2nd bullet (recommendation): in the text I added I typed shd when I should have typed should! I’ll update the text in drop box. Cheers Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: 12 September 2014 14:20 To: Martin Boyle Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Martin Thank you, You took your British pen and proposed a British style new version with which I have no major problem ( BY THE WAY WHAT IS MAJOR ,I DO NOT TELL YOU, SINCE YOU DIS NOT DESCRIBE WHAT IS SMALL MINORITY ). However, As I explained many times I would like you kindly describe what is small minority .Until the time that this question is not answered, I have serious difficulties to accept such a vague term due to the fact that it would turned against a particular group if other groups decide to penalize that group PLEASE KINDLY EXPLAIN QUANTITATIVELY OR GROUPWISE WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SMALL MINORITY how many members out of 30 or how many communities out of 13 communities that was described in one output message ? Secondly under second bullet relating to Recommandation, it is indicated Quote • "The decisions addressed in this section [AC1] relate to the handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s) AND NOT DECISIONS TO APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL RELATED" • Unquote • Please kindly explain WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "The decisions addressed in this section" • WHAT ARE THE NATURE OF THOSE DECISIOS? ire they dealing with sending the final proposal to NTIA? • if NOT WHAT THEY ARE? • Then please advise how and what approach will be used for cases DECISIONS TO be made for APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL RELATED"? • What are those cases • I am sorry the whole document is vague, unclear and ambigeous • Please use your nice pencil /pen and properly and convincingly reply to my question • Regards • Kavouss ________________________________ [AC1]Both types of decisions are « above » -- but here we’re only focusing on Section 4(b) decisions. [AC2]I believe Manal’s point here, which I think is critical, is that we will not be making decisions about proposal content. So, we should not say that we will be handling those decisions on a case-by-case basis, because we will not be handling them at all. [MB3]Fully agree r b 2014-09-12 14:15 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>>: Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns. I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion. Cheers Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: 11 September 2014 21:34 To: Martin Boyle Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Martin I agree with most of the things that you said. However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering. It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment. What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach. Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community We need to be general and cover every body's case Regards Kavouss
Martin Thank you again As per yr statement " Sorry, I won’t have the time to do this before Sunday or Monday. And it might be as well to give 24 hours in case there are any more views before posting again." Comment I agree .However, we need to have something either late Sunday or Monday to be prepared for 17 The ball is .In your Camp As per your statement " I did explain why used examples. However, I do not agree that we quote examples – whether in a footnote or in the text." Comment I understand there is some reluctence to include an example even as a footnote,However, be kindly informed that my agreement to join you and Alissa is conditioned that the example mentioned in your message is a valid example which may be a case which could occur. As per yr statement "As I read Alissa’s input, I think she is as concerned about ensuring consensus as I am – in fact I find I am very much in line with her views. Perhaps you might read her input again. " I do not really understand refernce to agreemnet or otherwise of Alissa, We are all equal without any superiority or inferioirity. I maintain my positiomn as mentioned in my previos messages. If you referred to Alissa to be infavoutr iof consensus, I am also infavour of consensus perhaps more than anyone else .Consensus is at the top of my mind .If you referred to something else please either explain or let Alissa explain as still I do not understand the refernce to Alissa's statemnt Regards Kavouss 2014-09-12 20:48 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Dear Kavouss,
Sorry, I won’t have the time to do this before Sunday or Monday. And it might be as well to give 24 hours in case there are any more views before posting again.
I did explain why used examples. However, I do not agree that we quote examples – whether in a footnote or in the text.
As I read Alissa’s input, I think she is as concerned about ensuring consensus as I am – in fact I find I am very much in line with her views. Perhaps you might read her input again.
MB
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* 12 September 2014 19:22
*To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Martin
Thank you again
Your explanation was helpful as usual
We are more or less on the same wavelength .
As for refernce to Case by Case approach or concept,I prefer the first option that you proposed i.e, para 4.b. 1st bullet, to be re-written ( by you) as “…and not decisions related to approval/rejection of content of the proposals( emphasis to be made whether we mean proposal received from various communities, or proposal to be sent to NTIA ). The approach to making the final decision where there is no consensus needs to be handled on a case by case basis.”PLS ADD the following
WITH A VIEW TO REACH CONSENSUS
mARTIN
I wish to point out and even emphasize that I AM FULLY IN FAVOUR OF REACHING CONSENSUS BY ALL MEANS EVEN IF WE MAY BE PUSHED TO REEXAMINE THE CASE USING DIFFERENT APPROACH/MECHANISM ....( Alissa may not agree but we should do our utmost effort to be united in reaching consensus.
I also request you to kindly include your example that I have quoted from your your message ( GAC or ALAC + ICC BASIS) in a footnote to * small minority *.that further clarify the matter and provide me an assurance that we all understand what we mean by significan or samall miniriy
Please kindly amend your text and send me a copy of the clean text in word format
Regards
Kavouss
2014-09-12 19:03 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Dear Kavouss,
1. I am not proposing we use the term significant minority, but was trying to explain what a small minority might mean depending on the circumstances.
By the way, I would pick up on your quotation from my e-mail: I was trying possible examples and I also pointed out that the context of the opposition was also important. I do not know whether other ICG members would agree with me on the analysis: the point is whether we can use the qualifier “small.” Just saying a minority is not acceptable, for reasons I’ve tried to explain.
2. I do not think the term case-by-case is needed as the concept is covered in a good number of places in the text. It is probably accidental that the term disappeared from the text because neither Alissa nor I understood what the sentence they were in actually meant.
If you really are attached to using that phrase somewhere, it could be in 4.b. 1st bullet, re-written as “…and not decisions related to approval/rejection of content of the proposals. The approach to making the final decision where there is no consensus needs to be handled on a case by case basis.”
An alternative might be under 4.c. third paragraph (deleted by me), to replace it with, “Chair and vice chairs should assess when it might be appropriate to conclude the discussion based on the nature of the issue and the outstanding objections. This might need to be done on a case by case basis and in discussion with the members of the ICG.”
As I said, I think it is covered, so I leave it to you to decide if you want the reference (and which one): paste it into the document and issue a new and cleaned up version so we have a reasonably stable version for Wednesday.
Thanks
Martin
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* 12 September 2014 17:01
*To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Martin,
Gradually we are walking towards each other.
We are now much closer than before.
One thing that I noticed in your mail is the following:
Your reply in this message is
Quote
1. " I would count all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant minority. Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority "
Unqoute
If your views that "all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant minority. Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority " Thus the above-mentioned groups( GAC members in toto or ALAC+ ICC-BASIS ) , if either of the two objects to an issue their objections ( objection of GAC or objection of ALAC+ICC-BASIS) WILL NOT BE are not considered AS minority objection but significant objection ,then I agree with you provided that all ICG MEMEBRS CONFIRM THAT UNDERSTANDING
2.Moreover, ,I still wish to clearly refer to Case by case approach in the text.
Please while assuring me of agreement of all ICGmembers to our ( both of us ) undertanding of SIGNIFICAN MINORITY, point me towards the area in which your text refrred to case by case approach/concept
And I thank you very much for that
Kavouss
becoming
2014-09-12 17:35 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Dear Kavouss,
I just edited to try to remove the problems I had with the draft, which was what you asked me to do.
I did not try to describe what a small minority might be. But, unqualified, a minority for this group means 14 people not agreeing: the term needs to be qualified. How: I am not sure I’d want to define this up front. But I would note that I would count all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant minority. Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority if the issue was one that affected end users. It’s the other side of my point that the operational communities need to be comfortable with the bits that affect their service from the IANA operator.
It is also associated with my antipathy to voting. Voting is a blunt tool: we need to consider the consequences that we have just ignored someone, or a small group of people. Hence we should not go there until we understand what we are dealing with. I’m not going to be drawn.
The bit you quote (“The decisions addressed in this section relate to the handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s)”) is actually the first bullet in 4.b. Alissa picked this up, but she explained why “above-mentioned” was not helpful and suggested wording. It clarifies that we are dealing with “all other decisions.” The section is 4.b., which could, if you want to be pedantic about it, be put in brackets after the word “section.” My amendment was to replace the word “disapproval” (which is not the opposite of approval in this case) with rejection. The point (as I understood the intention of the original text) was that the ICG does not have the role of rejecting proposals because of the content, something that Manal picked up. This is an important point, so one I want to make sure is crystal clear.
What do we turn down? I think it might be because the process was flawed (it was not an inclusive process or there was a lot of opposition) or because it really won’t work. Again I’m not sure I see value in trying to enumerate the reasons – won’t we know it when we see it?
While looking for the text you wanted me to clarify, I noticed a typo in 4.c. 2nd bullet (recommendation): in the text I added I typed shd when I should have typed should! I’ll update the text in drop box.
Cheers
Martin
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* 12 September 2014 14:20
*To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Martin
Thank you,
You took your British pen and proposed a British style new version with which I have no major problem ( BY THE WAY WHAT IS MAJOR ,I DO NOT TELL YOU, SINCE YOU DIS NOT DESCRIBE WHAT IS SMALL MINORITY ).
However, As I explained many times I would like you kindly describe what is small minority .Until the time that this question is not answered, I have serious difficulties to accept such a vague term due to the fact that it would turned against a particular group if other groups decide to penalize that group
PLEASE KINDLY EXPLAIN QUANTITATIVELY OR GROUPWISE WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SMALL MINORITY
how many members out of 30 or how many communities out of 13 communities that was described in one output message ?
Secondly under second bullet relating to Recommandation, it is indicated
Quote
· "The decisions addressed in this section [AC1] relate to the handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s) AND NOT DECISIONS TO APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL RELATED"
· Unquote
· Please kindly explain WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "The decisions addressed in this section"
· WHAT ARE THE NATURE OF THOSE DECISIOS? ire they dealing with sending the final proposal to NTIA?
· if NOT WHAT THEY ARE?
· Then please advise how and what approach will be used for cases DECISIONS TO be made for APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL RELATED"?
· What are those cases
· I am sorry the whole document is vague, unclear and ambigeous
· Please use your nice pencil /pen and properly and convincingly reply to my question
· Regards
· Kavouss ------------------------------
[AC1]Both types of decisions are « above » -- but here we’re only focusing on Section 4(b) decisions.
[AC2]I believe Manal’s point here, which I think is critical, is that we will not be making decisions about proposal content. So, we should not say that we will be handling those decisions on a case-by-case basis, because we will not be handling them at all.
[MB3]Fully agree
r b
2014-09-12 14:15 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns.
I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion.
Cheers
Martin
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* 11 September 2014 21:34 *To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Martin
I agree with most of the things that you said.
However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering.
It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment.
What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others
I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach.
Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin
SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish
However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community
We need to be general and cover every body's case
Regards
Kavouss
Colleagues: In an attempt to find a middle ground, I have attempted to address a number of the issues through small edits. for small minority, I have tried blending a number of the concepts into a new paragraph. ·*Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.Factors of determination may include the nature and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection -- whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of a or a number of communiites and the attemps that have been made to resolve those concerns/objections.While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. * * * ** Other issues include a clarification of subject matter decisions (we do make decisions as to sufficiency of subject matter to meet NTIA requirement or the lack of consensus on an issue, that is beyond assembling, what we don't do is redraft the proposal), as well as Martin's question related to why polling... Hope these help. Joe On 9/12/2014 8:15 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns.
I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion.
Cheers
Martin
*From:*Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* 11 September 2014 21:34 *To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Martin
I agree with most of the things that you said.
However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering.
It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment.
What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others
I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach.
Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin
SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish
However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community
We need to be general and cover every body's case
Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Joe, Thank you very much for your attempt to narrow down the exting divergence. In the last sentence of added bullet Quote *While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. "* *Unquote* Please kindly clarify the situation in theexample given by Martin in which IF all 5 GAC members or ALAC +ICC-BASIS object to a case Under consideration a) Does that objection significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. " b) To which of the 3 operational Communities ( names, numbers and protocol parameter ) GAC or ALAC +ICC-BASIS could be associated . In general ,your added text further clarify the matter .I am comfortable that you have maintained the concept of case by case . Awating your kind clarification Kavouss 2014-09-13 12:32 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Colleagues:
In an attempt to find a middle ground, I have attempted to address a number of the issues through small edits. for small minority, I have tried blending a number of the concepts into a new paragraph.
· *Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Factors of determination may include the nature and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection – whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of a or a number of communiites and the attemps that have been made to resolve those concerns/objections. While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. *
Other issues include a clarification of subject matter decisions (we do make decisions as to sufficiency of subject matter to meet NTIA requirement or the lack of consensus on an issue, that is beyond assembling, what we don't do is redraft the proposal), as well as Martin's question related to why polling...
Hope these help.
Joe
On 9/12/2014 8:15 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns.
I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion.
Cheers
Martin
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] *Sent:* 11 September 2014 21:34 *To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Martin
I agree with most of the things that you said.
However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering.
It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment.
What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others
I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach.
Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin
SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish
However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community
We need to be general and cover every body's case
Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Kavous: I think it depends on the nature of the concern, that's why t needs to be on a case by case basis. For example, ICC-Basis as a whole may have wanted more testing of the proposal, but that may not be the basis for saying it is not a proposal that should be considered. I think the operational communities, because of their role, and if the nature of the objection is operational, have a different nature of objection... Perhaps a better phrasing might be: All stakeholder communities have a role in the development of the broad consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support of concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities will impact the ability of the ICG to submit a proposal that meets the requirements of the NTIA process. Concerns of an operational nature form one or more operational community would also significantly limit the ability of ICG to submit a proposal that meets the terms of the NTIA requirements. This would replace the last sentence. Its certainly not exact, but as we have found, precise terms have been beyond our reach because of the need to properly apply these principles in context... Happy to see if anyone has better words than mine... Joe On 9/13/2014 7:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Joe, Thank you very much for your attempt to narrow down the exting divergence. In the last sentence of added bullet Quote *While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. "* *Unquote* Please kindly clarify the situation in theexample given by Martin in which IF all 5 GAC members or ALAC +ICC-BASIS object to a case Under consideration a) Does that objection significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. " b) To which of the 3 operational Communities ( names, numbers and protocol parameter ) GAC or ALAC +ICC-BASIS could be associated . In general ,your added text further clarify the matter .I am comfortable that you have maintained the concept of case by case . Awating your kind clarification Kavouss
2014-09-13 12:32 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>>:
Colleagues:
In an attempt to find a middle ground, I have attempted to address a number of the issues through small edits. for small minority, I have tried blending a number of the concepts into a new paragraph.
·*Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.Factors of determination may include the nature and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection – whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of a or a number of communiites and the attemps that have been made to resolve those concerns/objections.While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. *
* *
**
Other issues include a clarification of subject matter decisions (we do make decisions as to sufficiency of subject matter to meet NTIA requirement or the lack of consensus on an issue, that is beyond assembling, what we don't do is redraft the proposal), as well as Martin's question related to why polling...
Hope these help.
Joe
On 9/12/2014 8:15 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns.
I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion.
Cheers
Martin
*From:*Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* 11 September 2014 21:34 *To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Martin
I agree with most of the things that you said.
However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering.
It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment.
What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others
I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach.
Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin
SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish
However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community
We need to be general and cover every body's case
Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Joe thanks for the time ,efforts and thoughts Aloow me to thniik over and come back to you .Perhaps the combination of both by adding your last to your previous suggestion with" in other words" could be a solution. Kavouss 2014-09-13 14:39 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Kavous:
I think it depends on the nature of the concern, that's why t needs to be on a case by case basis. For example, ICC-Basis as a whole may have wanted more testing of the proposal, but that may not be the basis for saying it is not a proposal that should be considered. I think the operational communities, because of their role, and if the nature of the objection is operational, have a different nature of objection...
Perhaps a better phrasing might be:
All stakeholder communities have a role in the development of the broad consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support of concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities will impact the ability of the ICG to submit a proposal that meets the requirements of the NTIA process. Concerns of an operational nature form one or more operational community would also significantly limit the ability of ICG to submit a proposal that meets the terms of the NTIA requirements.
This would replace the last sentence.
Its certainly not exact, but as we have found, precise terms have been beyond our reach because of the need to properly apply these principles in context...
Happy to see if anyone has better words than mine...
Joe
On 9/13/2014 7:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Joe, Thank you very much for your attempt to narrow down the exting divergence. In the last sentence of added bullet Quote *While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. "* *Unquote* Please kindly clarify the situation in theexample given by Martin in which IF all 5 GAC members or ALAC +ICC-BASIS object to a case Under consideration a) Does that objection significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. " b) To which of the 3 operational Communities ( names, numbers and protocol parameter ) GAC or ALAC +ICC-BASIS could be associated . In general ,your added text further clarify the matter .I am comfortable that you have maintained the concept of case by case . Awating your kind clarification Kavouss
2014-09-13 12:32 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Colleagues:
In an attempt to find a middle ground, I have attempted to address a number of the issues through small edits. for small minority, I have tried blending a number of the concepts into a new paragraph.
· *Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Factors of determination may include the nature and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection – whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of a or a number of communiites and the attemps that have been made to resolve those concerns/objections. While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. *
Other issues include a clarification of subject matter decisions (we do make decisions as to sufficiency of subject matter to meet NTIA requirement or the lack of consensus on an issue, that is beyond assembling, what we don't do is redraft the proposal), as well as Martin's question related to why polling...
Hope these help.
Joe
On 9/12/2014 8:15 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns.
I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion.
Cheers
Martin
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] *Sent:* 11 September 2014 21:34 *To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Martin
I agree with most of the things that you said.
However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering.
It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment.
What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others
I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach.
Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin
SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish
However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community
We need to be general and cover every body's case
Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I look forward to your considered reply. Best Joe Sent from my iPad
On Sep 13, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Joe thanks for the time ,efforts and thoughts Aloow me to thniik over and come back to you .Perhaps the combination of both by adding your last to your previous suggestion with" in other words" could be a solution. Kavouss
2014-09-13 14:39 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Kavous:
I think it depends on the nature of the concern, that's why t needs to be on a case by case basis. For example, ICC-Basis as a whole may have wanted more testing of the proposal, but that may not be the basis for saying it is not a proposal that should be considered. I think the operational communities, because of their role, and if the nature of the objection is operational, have a different nature of objection...
Perhaps a better phrasing might be:
All stakeholder communities have a role in the development of the broad consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support of concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities will impact the ability of the ICG to submit a proposal that meets the requirements of the NTIA process. Concerns of an operational nature form one or more operational community would also significantly limit the ability of ICG to submit a proposal that meets the terms of the NTIA requirements.
This would replace the last sentence.
Its certainly not exact, but as we have found, precise terms have been beyond our reach because of the need to properly apply these principles in context...
Happy to see if anyone has better words than mine...
Joe
On 9/13/2014 7:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Joe, Thank you very much for your attempt to narrow down the exting divergence. In the last sentence of added bullet Quote While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. " Unquote Please kindly clarify the situation in theexample given by Martin in which IF all 5 GAC members or ALAC +ICC-BASIS object to a case Under consideration a) Does that objection significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. " b) To which of the 3 operational Communities ( names, numbers and protocol parameter ) GAC or ALAC +ICC-BASIS could be associated . In general ,your added text further clarify the matter .I am comfortable that you have maintained the concept of case by case . Awating your kind clarification Kavouss
2014-09-13 12:32 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Colleagues:
In an attempt to find a middle ground, I have attempted to address a number of the issues through small edits. for small minority, I have tried blending a number of the concepts into a new paragraph. · Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Factors of determination may include the nature and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection – whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of a or a number of communiites and the attemps that have been made to resolve those concerns/objections. While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal.
Other issues include a clarification of subject matter decisions (we do make decisions as to sufficiency of subject matter to meet NTIA requirement or the lack of consensus on an issue, that is beyond assembling, what we don't do is redraft the proposal), as well as Martin's question related to why polling...
Hope these help.
Joe
On 9/12/2014 8:15 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns.
I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion.
Cheers
Martin
From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: 11 September 2014 21:34 To: Martin Boyle Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Martin
I agree with most of the things that you said.
However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering.
It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment.
What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others
I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach.
Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin
SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish
However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community
We need to be general and cover every body's case
Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, I wish to thank all for the much progress made on the difficult topic and work of the ICG. I have uploaded to the drop box Draft 12 building on what others have done with a few comments and minor edits. (See NIRA TECH comments). The most difficult part for me is the voting aspect as majority will always prevail in any poll. Small but significant minority may be ignored or overruled with voting. Any voting in the section dealing with Recommendation may negate our work and will not produce the desired and acceptable proposal to NTIA, again the expectation of a broad consensus of the communities will be wanting in the final report. It would be helpful if the paragraph 4(c)(iv) is rephrased or deleted. I did not provide any language though, but will be willing to do so on the 17th if need be, or any other member can help out here and suggest a language to replace it. What we need is TRUST+COMPROMISES which will result into CONSENSUS. . BR Mary Uduma On Saturday, September 13, 2014 5:41 PM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote: I look forward to your considered reply. Best Joe Sent from my iPad On Sep 13, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Joe thanks for the time ,efforts and thoughts
Aloow me to thniik over and come back to you .Perhaps the combination of both by adding your last to your previous suggestion with" in other words" could be a solution. Kavouss
2014-09-13 14:39 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Kavous:
I think it depends on the nature of the concern, that's why t needs
to be on a case by case basis. For example, ICC-Basis as a whole may have wanted more testing of the proposal, but that may not be the basis for saying it is not a proposal that should be considered. I think the operational communities, because of their role, and if the nature of the objection is operational, have a different nature of objection...
Perhaps a better phrasing might be:
All stakeholder communities have a role in the development of the
broad consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support of concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities will impact the ability of the ICG to submit a proposal that meets the requirements of the NTIA process. Concerns of an operational nature form one or more operational community would also significantly limit the ability of ICG to submit a proposal that meets the terms of the NTIA requirements.
This would replace the last sentence.
Its certainly not exact, but as we have found, precise terms have
been beyond our reach because of the need to properly apply these principles in context...
Happy to see if anyone has better words than mine...
Joe
On 9/13/2014 7:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Joe,
Thank you very much for your attempt to narrow down the exting divergence. In the last sentence of added bullet Quote While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. " Unquote Please kindly clarify the situation in theexample given by Martin in which IF all 5 GAC members or ALAC +ICC-BASIS object to a case Under consideration a) Does that objection significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. " b) To which of the 3 operational Communities ( names, numbers and protocol parameter ) GAC or ALAC +ICC-BASIS could be associated . In general ,your added text further clarify the matter .I am comfortable that you have maintained the concept of case by case . Awating your kind clarification Kavouss
2014-09-13 12:32 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Colleagues:
In an attempt to find a middle ground, I have attempted to
address a number of the issues through small edits. for small minority, I have tried blending a number of the concepts into a new paragraph.
· Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Factors of determination may include the nature and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection – whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of a or a number of communiites and the attemps that have been made to resolve those concerns/objections. While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal.
Other issues include a clarification of subject matter decisions (we do make decisions as to sufficiency of subject matter to meet NTIA requirement or the lack of consensus on an issue, that is beyond assembling, what we don't do is redraft the proposal), as well as Martin's question related to why polling...
Hope these help.
Joe
On 9/12/2014 8:15 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns.
I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion.
Cheers
Martin
From:Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: 11 September 2014 21:34 To: Martin Boyle Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Martin I agree with most of the things that you said. However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering. It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment. What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach. Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community We need to be general and cover every body's case Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Mary: I don't think the intent of the poll is to make a decision but more to get a sense of the members when it may not be clear from postings (recall that not all members may have shared opinions and with multiple drafts of language the current status of opinion may not be clear) ... Perhaps we could clarify language in that direction to address your concerns? Joe On 9/14/2014 6:12 PM, Mary Uduma wrote:
Dear All, I wish to thank all for the much progress made on the difficult topic and work of the ICG.
I have uploaded to the drop box Draft 12 building on what others have done with a few comments and minor edits. (See NIRA TECH comments).
The most difficult part for me is the voting aspect as majority will always prevail in any poll. Small but significant minority may be ignored or overruled with voting. Any voting in the section dealing with Recommendation may negate our work and will not produce the desired and acceptable proposal to NTIA, again the expectation of a broad consensus of the communities will be wanting in the final report. It would be helpful if the paragraph 4(c)(iv) is rephrased or deleted. I did not provide any language though, but will be willing to do so on the 17th if need be, or any other member can help out here and suggest a language to replace it.
What we need is TRUST+COMPROMISES which will result into CONSENSUS. .
BR Mary Uduma
On Saturday, September 13, 2014 5:41 PM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I look forward to your considered reply.
Best
Joe
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 13, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Joe thanks for the time ,efforts and thoughts Aloow me to thniik over and come back to you .Perhaps the combination of both by adding your last to your previous suggestion with" in other words" could be a solution. Kavouss
2014-09-13 14:39 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>>:
Kavous:
I think it depends on the nature of the concern, that's why t needs to be on a case by case basis. For example, ICC-Basis as a whole may have wanted more testing of the proposal, but that may not be the basis for saying it is not a proposal that should be considered. I think the operational communities, because of their role, and if the nature of the objection is operational, have a different nature of objection...
Perhaps a better phrasing might be:
All stakeholder communities have a role in the development of the broad consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support of concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities will impact the ability of the ICG to submit a proposal that meets the requirements of the NTIA process. Concerns of an operational nature form one or more operational community would also significantly limit the ability of ICG to submit a proposal that meets the terms of the NTIA requirements.
This would replace the last sentence.
Its certainly not exact, but as we have found, precise terms have been beyond our reach because of the need to properly apply these principles in context...
Happy to see if anyone has better words than mine...
Joe
On 9/13/2014 7:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Joe, Thank you very much for your attempt to narrow down the exting divergence. In the last sentence of added bullet Quote *While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. "* *Unquote* Please kindly clarify the situation in theexample given by Martin in which IF all 5 GAC members or ALAC +ICC-BASIS object to a case Under consideration a) Does that objection significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. " b) To which of the 3 operational Communities ( names, numbers and protocol parameter ) GAC or ALAC +ICC-BASIS could be associated . In general ,your added text further clarify the matter .I am comfortable that you have maintained the concept of case by case . Awating your kind clarification Kavouss
2014-09-13 12:32 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>>:
Colleagues:
In an attempt to find a middle ground, I have attempted to address a number of the issues through small edits. for small minority, I have tried blending a number of the concepts into a new paragraph. ·*Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.Factors of determination may include the nature and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection – whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of a or a number of communiites and the attemps that have been made to resolve those concerns/objections.While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. * * * **
Other issues include a clarification of subject matter decisions (we do make decisions as to sufficiency of subject matter to meet NTIA requirement or the lack of consensus on an issue, that is beyond assembling, what we don't do is redraft the proposal), as well as Martin's question related to why polling...
Hope these help.
Joe
On 9/12/2014 8:15 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns. I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion. Cheers Martin *From:*Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* 11 September 2014 21:34 *To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Martin I agree with most of the things that you said. However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering. It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment. What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach. Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community We need to be general and cover every body's case Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Martin, Dear Joe Deal Alissa I agreed to a greater extent to your suggestions and edits d Martin made also good edits but wanted more time to include some of my suggestions but stopped on Friday evening sending auto reply Joe sent compromise to which I agreed as he combined three suggestions I made comments awaiting his reply I have not heard from any of you since two/three days ago Please Martin or Joe or Alissa kindly put your thought together and possibly one take the initiative to include all amendments and comments However, we have no time to include new ideas or have a new draft WAITING FOR YOU KIND ACTION Regards Kavouss I agreed ,in general sense to both Mating and Joe 2014-09-15 12:18 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Mary:
I don't think the intent of the poll is to make a decision but more to get a sense of the members when it may not be clear from postings (recall that not all members may have shared opinions and with multiple drafts of language the current status of opinion may not be clear) ... Perhaps we could clarify language in that direction to address your concerns?
Joe
On 9/14/2014 6:12 PM, Mary Uduma wrote:
Dear All, I wish to thank all for the much progress made on the difficult topic and work of the ICG.
I have uploaded to the drop box Draft 12 building on what others have done with a few comments and minor edits. (See NIRA TECH comments).
The most difficult part for me is the voting aspect as majority will always prevail in any poll. Small but significant minority may be ignored or overruled with voting. Any voting in the section dealing with Recommendation may negate our work and will not produce the desired and acceptable proposal to NTIA, again the expectation of a broad consensus of the communities will be wanting in the final report. It would be helpful if the paragraph 4(c)(iv) is rephrased or deleted. I did not provide any language though, but will be willing to do so on the 17th if need be, or any other member can help out here and suggest a language to replace it.
What we need is TRUST+COMPROMISES which will result into CONSENSUS. .
BR Mary Uduma
<https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_1> <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6> <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_2> <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_3>
On Saturday, September 13, 2014 5:41 PM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I look forward to your considered reply.
Best
Joe
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 13, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Joe thanks for the time ,efforts and thoughts Aloow me to thniik over and come back to you .Perhaps the combination of both by adding your last to your previous suggestion with" in other words" could be a solution. Kavouss
2014-09-13 14:39 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Kavous:
I think it depends on the nature of the concern, that's why t needs to be on a case by case basis. For example, ICC-Basis as a whole may have wanted more testing of the proposal, but that may not be the basis for saying it is not a proposal that should be considered. I think the operational communities, because of their role, and if the nature of the objection is operational, have a different nature of objection...
Perhaps a better phrasing might be:
All stakeholder communities have a role in the development of the broad consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support of concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities will impact the ability of the ICG to submit a proposal that meets the requirements of the NTIA process. Concerns of an operational nature form one or more operational community would also significantly limit the ability of ICG to submit a proposal that meets the terms of the NTIA requirements.
This would replace the last sentence.
Its certainly not exact, but as we have found, precise terms have been beyond our reach because of the need to properly apply these principles in context...
Happy to see if anyone has better words than mine...
Joe
On 9/13/2014 7:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Joe, Thank you very much for your attempt to narrow down the exting divergence. In the last sentence of added bullet Quote *While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. "* *Unquote* Please kindly clarify the situation in theexample given by Martin in which IF all 5 GAC members or ALAC +ICC-BASIS object to a case Under consideration a) Does that objection significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. " b) To which of the 3 operational Communities ( names, numbers and protocol parameter ) GAC or ALAC +ICC-BASIS could be associated . In general ,your added text further clarify the matter .I am comfortable that you have maintained the concept of case by case . Awating your kind clarification Kavouss
2014-09-13 12:32 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Colleagues:
In an attempt to find a middle ground, I have attempted to address a number of the issues through small edits. for small minority, I have tried blending a number of the concepts into a new paragraph. · *Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Factors of determination may include the nature and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection – whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of a or a number of communiites and the attemps that have been made to resolve those concerns/objections. While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. *
Other issues include a clarification of subject matter decisions (we do make decisions as to sufficiency of subject matter to meet NTIA requirement or the lack of consensus on an issue, that is beyond assembling, what we don't do is redraft the proposal), as well as Martin's question related to why polling...
Hope these help.
Joe
On 9/12/2014 8:15 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns.
I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion.
Cheers
Martin
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] *Sent:* 11 September 2014 21:34 *To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Martin I agree with most of the things that you said. However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering. It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment. What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach. Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community We need to be general and cover every body's case Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hi Kavouss, Thanks, I think I now understand what people had in mind as far as the “other frameworks.” The document calls on the chair and vice-chairs to do a lot of things, so I was trying to make sure that I understand what those things are. I agree with the idea of using a case-by-case approach if necessary and none of my edits were intended to change that, nor do I believe that they do change that. Thanks, Alissa On 9/11/14, 2:36 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa, I do not understand what we are doing here. If 30 people start to totally redraft the ddocument we never end the drafting process. Those who have not make any comments from 06 September should kindly understand that others made considerable efforts to have some degree of mutual understanding Allow me to reply to your comments one by one
1. Thanks everyone for the work that has been put into this. My comments and suggestions are attached. Couple of process points:
No Comments from KA
2. * My understanding is that we intend as a group to finalize this document on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17.
Comments from KA ,yes
3 .* Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in the next iteration we could go back tComments from KA ,yes o using the document naming convention established by Patrik. < https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docum ents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20documen... s%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0> >
Comments from KA
That procedure is not an approved way to name .that reflects views from one ICG.However, it is not important
Couple of substantive points that are also highlighted in the attached:
4 * In Section 3, I believe members who will be absent from a call should provide their views in advance, if they wish, to the full ICG, not just the chair/vice-chairs.
Comments from KA
I understand that any views provided to chair and vice chairs should certainly be provided by chair or Vice chair(s) in the absence of the chair to the entire group but I can agree with the amendments as it brings more clarity to the text
5 * In Section 4(b), I do not understand what “any other mechanisms of consensus” means.
Comments from KA
Please note that ,at G11 informal meeting .at the begining people did not want to have any example.However, they suggested to give one possible example .However, some other people wished to include other examples Finally WE AGREED THAT OTHER EXAMPLES COULD / SHOULD BE EXPLORED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS The term " case by case basis" was the heart of the whole issue that you have unfortunately ignored it and thus the whole discussions of G11 IS OVERRULES BY YOU .I categorically disagree with that. In order to implement , on the one hand, the case by case apèproach, and on the other hand, not to overload the document with several examples, the term “any other mechanisms " as appropriate and according to the case was included .
6 * In Section 4(c), the second sentence of the Recommendation bullet seemed to require either running a consensus process twice, or it just repeated what was in the first sentence. I don’t think we want to run the same processes twice, so I deleted that sentence.
Comments from KA
Your understanding is right First it is tried to reach consensus once the issue is sufficient discussed
In not ,every effort or utmost efforts should be made to explore ways and means other than those previously considered at the first round to acheive consensus
7 * In Section 4(c), I have reverted the language in the Recommendation example to the suggestion by Martin about directly affected communities being overruled. I think this very important edit was lost in the discussion last week.
Comments from KA
The issue is that people tries to over emphasize should be pointed to each group as , as a general rule the interests of all groups represented in ICG should be taken into account .Agin you wish to limit every thing to three operational communities from the outset whereas that approach should not be taken as general rules. Can you please identify the link 7association of each and evry grouip participating in ICG to the three operational communities that you pointing toward.It is difficult to singleout only secific group as such .However, at further stage ,we may be able to focus on a particular operational or oerating community
8
* In Section 4(c), I don’t understand what this means: "Chair and vice chairs are advised to consider other possible consensus frameworks in addressing the issues, as appropriate to the nature of the case.” What are other possible consensus frameworks?
Comments from KA Part of the language is suggested by Wolf However, to reply you, It means that, should the above rounds of efforts were/ are exhausted ,chair and vice chairs ( you may add,together with intrested parties )are advised or should further explore other ways and means to identify other options 7 alternatives e.g. IETF consensus approach ,if the issue relates to the domain of activities of IETF .However, it was agreed that no such sopecific option / mechanism / alternative is referred to at this point of time rather leave it to the CASE BY CASE APPROACH I hope I have replied to your various comments
General comment from KA Let us make every effort not to come back to square one .we did a lot of efforts to establish a great degree of understanding and that understanding needs to be retained Regards Kavouss
2014-09-11 17:39 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Thanks everyone for the work that has been put into this. My comments and suggestions are attached. Couple of process points:
* My understanding is that we intend as a group to finalize this document on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17.
* Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in the next iteration we could go back to using the document naming convention established by Patrik. <https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docum ents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20documen ts%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0> >
Couple of substantive points that are also highlighted in the attached:
* In Section 3, I believe members who will be absent from a call should provide their views in advance, if they wish, to the full ICG, not just the chair/vice-chairs.
* In Section 4(b), I do not understand what “any other mechanisms of consensus” means.
* In Section 4(c), the second sentence of the Recommendation bullet seemed to require either running a consensus process twice, or it just repeated what was in the first sentence. I don’t think we want to run the same processes twice, so I deleted that sentence.
* In Section 4(c), I have reverted the language in the Recommendation example to the suggestion by Martin about directly affected communities being overruled. I think this very important edit was lost in the discussion last week.
* In Section 4(c), I don’t understand what this means: "Chair and vice chairs are advised to consider other possible consensus frameworks in addressing the issues, as appropriate to the nature of the case.” What are other possible consensus frameworks?
Thanks, Alissa
On 9/11/14, 6:46 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Martin, Thanks for comments May I then request you and others to comment on the clean Draft taking last comments from Wolf, previous comments from Joe,Jari ,Manal and some edits from me. See what I sent few mints ago .I wait till tomorrow Friday 12 Sept. On early Sunday I leave Geneva to attend CEPT meeting for PP-14 Thus it is preferable to make final draft before Sunday 13.09 Regards Kavouss
2014-09-11 12:39 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
No, I still have comments on this document. I hope to post in the next 24 hours.
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Sep 2014, at 11:28, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Wolf I found another area which could be grammatically and structurally be improved
It should be noted that a document is considered as a stable draft for approval, provided that the draft is available at least 7 calendar days before the date on which the approval process is scheduled .
[Aneffort shouldbemadeto document the variance in viewpoint] This part is deleted since does not say any thing at all..I kept the remaining but replaced justified minority views deviating from the recommendation can be separately expressed and documented in the report . Based on that.,may I produced a clean text
Kavouss
2014-09-11 11:24 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf May I now produce a clean document and send it to others for final comments notably of purely editorial and grammatical nature? Kavouss
2014-09-11 8:34 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Thanks Kavouss, accepted.
As you can see attached I suggest to shift the text marked under “Recommendation” to the part where the evaluation method is described. Or at least separate it from the bullet points here.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:37 AM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Thank you for your kind and prompt reply I have made following amendments to your draft as follows: Para. 4 a,second sub-para. second part of that sub-para ," is " is replaced by " should be "
Para. 4 b ,first bullet below sencond sub-para, The part saying " Consensus here refers to" is replced by" The above-mentioned " due to the fact that the paragraph to which this bullet referred does not deal with " Consensus" rather it referred to " Decicion" . In the same bullet the phrase" if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities" is replaced by" which would be handled on a case by case basis " This was the overall agreemnt that G11 reached after the ICG meeting in Istanbul . Last page , in iii, As a matter of fact, I am not comfortable in using any adjective like "serious" or " firm" or "major" to describe opposition . However, to be more cooperative I could reluctantly agree to use the adjective " justified" as such opposition needs to be submitted with necessary justifications .In that case the adjective " serious" is replaced by" justified " . Moreover, in reviewing the text, I found some structural and content mistakes in para. c) ,second bullet which I have corrected
Finally Under the same section c) in bullet 3 ,I suggest we replace" example " by " option" to be consistent with the terms used in bullet 2 above .However, I leave it to you to agree with that change
I hope you and others agree with these small edits Kavouss
2014-09-10 21:53 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear all,
attached please find my remaining amendments with the following explanations regarding some of them:
* 4.a. last paragraph: I’ve inserted “The selection is done by a majority vote.” Rationale: The para talks about “...run a vote...”. The succeeding voting threshold must be clear.
* 4.b. first paragraph: grammatical edits
* 4.b. insertion of an additional bullet point re principles (Manal) which I support
* 4.c.iii. re-insertion of “serious”
Rationale: Opportunity should not be given for all kinds of objection since the issue should have been discussed extensively in advance to the designation. The remaining objection should then be characterized as « serious ». I would in particular be interested in the chair’s/VCs’ opinion regarding the case by case approach since they may want to facilitate the process.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11 Dear All ICG Members , I wish to refer to the draft that I sent to you on 08 September, taking into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee’s comments emphasizing that chair and vice chairs should identify other possible mechanism apart from the one mentioned in that draft May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the covering message., We need to finalize this text as soon as possible Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building with the utmost efforts If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus. However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs together with any other interested party/ties should explore all possible ways and means to identify an appropriate mechanism for a satisfactory resolution of the matter toward consensus . One example and just one example to consider an sissue approved by consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according to the case under consideration, ( case by case concept) Waiting for your kind reply, I remain. Regards
2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us. The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with. Evey one pushes for its own. I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma You said quote *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration" Unqoute YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with other views Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and getting. I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media quoting some thing from me which I never said that . Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and mindful. Regards Kavouss .
2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear Kavouss,
your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion.
Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, Allow me to share some thoughts with you
First of all, It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus That is a tradition and past and present and future practice. I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting
That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
These are pure allegation and hostile positions Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me. Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG The issue is not who is right and who is not right. The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus. Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views . Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so. Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue. ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus Consequently,: 1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable
2. agree to the case by case concept 3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case 4. agree not to refer to quorum 5.agree not to refer to simple minority 6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus 7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making 8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues 9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed. 10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus TKS KAVOUSS
2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Joe,
you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Wolf:
I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum.
Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Dear Heather,
I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this
I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca <mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM To: wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call.
Heather
From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
All,
let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator.
As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited.
Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Coordination Group <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss
2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM To: Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: ICG <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All ..
As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that: - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus .. - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA - A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections) - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities)
ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically: - Stresses the need for reaching consensus - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend .. Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page .. Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:From%3Ainternal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:
1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.
2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :
Public commentsreceived as a result ofany forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be dulyconsideredand carefully analyzed.
3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read
''Following these basic principles, thechair will beresponsible for designatingeach ICG position as oneof the following;'
4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.
Safe trip everyone.
Mary Uduma
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
OOOOsh!!!!
Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.
Please ignore my last unfinished mail.
Mary
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg <http://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg>
________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
<ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making, V1 New Round,starting 08 Sept + WUK 10 Sep.docx,KA,10 Sep, WUK 11 Sept,KA 11Sep.CLEAN VERSIPON ,.docx>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg <http://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg>
Alissa: The reference to other frameworks was to things like the IETF consensus process, but there was a concern of naming any specific one out of concern for having to name too many. I tried to clarify the language in edits... I have no objection to the language related to operational communities, but we cannot ignore the non operational communities and this language makes it seem like they are not relevant to consensus. edits attached. Joe On 9/11/2014 11:39 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Thanks everyone for the work that has been put into this. My comments and suggestions are attached. Couple of process points:
* My understanding is that we intend as a group to finalize this document on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17.
* Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in the next iteration we could go back to using the document naming convention established by Patrik. <https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docum ents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0>
Couple of substantive points that are also highlighted in the attached:
* In Section 3, I believe members who will be absent from a call should provide their views in advance, if they wish, to the full ICG, not just the chair/vice-chairs.
* In Section 4(b), I do not understand what "any other mechanisms of consensus" means.
* In Section 4(c), the second sentence of the Recommendation bullet seemed to require either running a consensus process twice, or it just repeated what was in the first sentence. I don't think we want to run the same processes twice, so I deleted that sentence.
* In Section 4(c), I have reverted the language in the Recommendation example to the suggestion by Martin about directly affected communities being overruled. I think this very important edit was lost in the discussion last week.
* In Section 4(c), I don't understand what this means: "Chair and vice chairs are advised to consider other possible consensus frameworks in addressing the issues, as appropriate to the nature of the case." What are other possible consensus frameworks?
Thanks, Alissa
On 9/11/14, 6:46 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Martin, Thanks for comments May I then request you and others to comment on the clean Draft taking last comments from Wolf, previous comments from Joe,Jari ,Manal and some edits from me. See what I sent few mints ago .I wait till tomorrow Friday 12 Sept. On early Sunday I leave Geneva to attend CEPT meeting for PP-14 Thus it is preferable to make final draft before Sunday 13.09 Regards Kavouss
2014-09-11 12:39 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
No, I still have comments on this document. I hope to post in the next 24 hours.
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Sep 2014, at 11:28, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Wolf I found another area which could be grammatically and structurally be improved
It should be noted that a document is considered as a stable draft for approval, provided that the draft is available at least 7 calendar days before the date on which the approval process is scheduled .
[Aneffort shouldbemadeto document the variance in viewpoint] This part is deleted since does not say any thing at all..I kept the remaining but replaced justified minority views deviating from the recommendation can be separately expressed and documented in the report . Based on that.,may I produced a clean text
Kavouss
2014-09-11 11:24 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf May I now produce a clean document and send it to others for final comments notably of purely editorial and grammatical nature? Kavouss
2014-09-11 8:34 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Thanks Kavouss, accepted.
As you can see attached I suggest to shift the text marked under "Recommendation" to the part where the evaluation method is described. Or at least separate it from the bullet points here.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:37 AM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Thank you for your kind and prompt reply I have made following amendments to your draft as follows: Para. 4 a,second sub-para. second part of that sub-para ," is " is replaced by " should be "
Para. 4 b ,first bullet below sencond sub-para, The part saying " Consensus here refers to" is replced by" The above-mentioned " due to the fact that the paragraph to which this bullet referred does not deal with " Consensus" rather it referred to " Decicion" . In the same bullet the phrase" if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities" is replaced by" which would be handled on a case by case basis " This was the overall agreemnt that G11 reached after the ICG meeting in Istanbul . Last page , in iii, As a matter of fact, I am not comfortable in using any adjective like "serious" or " firm" or "major" to describe opposition . However, to be more cooperative I could reluctantly agree to use the adjective " justified" as such opposition needs to be submitted with necessary justifications .In that case the adjective " serious" is replaced by" justified " . Moreover, in reviewing the text, I found some structural and content mistakes in para. c) ,second bullet which I have corrected
Finally Under the same section c) in bullet 3 ,I suggest we replace" example " by " option" to be consistent with the terms used in bullet 2 above .However, I leave it to you to agree with that change
I hope you and others agree with these small edits Kavouss
2014-09-10 21:53 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear all,
attached please find my remaining amendments with the following explanations regarding some of them:
* 4.a. last paragraph: I've inserted "The selection is done by a majority vote." Rationale: The para talks about "...run a vote...". The succeeding voting threshold must be clear.
* 4.b. first paragraph: grammatical edits
* 4.b. insertion of an additional bullet point re principles (Manal) which I support
* 4.c.iii. re-insertion of "serious"
Rationale: Opportunity should not be given for all kinds of objection since the issue should have been discussed extensively in advance to the designation. The remaining objection should then be characterized as « serious ». I would in particular be interested in the chair's/VCs' opinion regarding the case by case approach since they may want to facilitate the process.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11 Dear All ICG Members , I wish to refer to the draft that I sent to you on 08 September, taking into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee's comments emphasizing that chair and vice chairs should identify other possible mechanism apart from the one mentioned in that draft May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the covering message., We need to finalize this text as soon as possible Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building with the utmost efforts If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus. However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs together with any other interested party/ties should explore all possible ways and means to identify an appropriate mechanism for a satisfactory resolution of the matter toward consensus . One example and just one example to consider an sissue approved by consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according to the case under consideration, ( case by case concept) Waiting for your kind reply, I remain. Regards
2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us. The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with. Evey one pushes for its own. I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma You said quote *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration" Unqoute YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with other views Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and getting. I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media quoting some thing from me which I never said that . Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and mindful. Regards Kavouss .
2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear Kavouss,
your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it's intention nor does it meet it's performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you're describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion.
Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, Allow me to share some thoughts with you
First of all, It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus That is a tradition and past and present and future practice. I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting
That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
These are pure allegation and hostile positions Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me. Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG The issue is not who is right and who is not right. The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus. Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other's views . Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so. Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue. ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus Consequently,: 1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable
2. agree to the case by case concept 3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case 4. agree not to refer to quorum 5.agree not to refer to simple minority 6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus 7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making 8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues 9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed. 10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus TKS KAVOUSS
2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Joe,
you're right. I've seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Wolf:
I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum.
Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Dear Heather,
I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this
I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca <mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM To: wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call.
Heather
From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
All,
let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session ("G11") was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator.
As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I've made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited.
Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Coordination Group <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss
2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM To: Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: ICG <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All ..
As one of those who have attended the 'consensus building' discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that: - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus .. - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA - A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections) - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities)
ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically: - Stresses the need for reaching consensus - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend .. Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page .. Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:
1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.
2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :
Public commentsreceived as a result ofany forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be dulyconsideredand carefully analyzed.
3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read
''Following these basic principles, thechair will beresponsible for designatingeach ICG position as oneof the following;'
4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.
Safe trip everyone.
Mary Uduma
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
OOOOsh!!!!
Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.
Please ignore my last unfinished mail.
Mary
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
<ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making, V1 New Round,starting 08 Sept + WUK 10 Sep.docx,KA,10 Sep, WUK 11 Sept,KA 11Sep.CLEAN VERSIPON ,.docx>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I fully endorse Joe's views and suggest to go back to the last but one draft commented before Alissa proposing a drastic change with which we tottaly ignore the case by case approach Kavouss 2014-09-11 21:36 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Alissa:
The reference to other frameworks was to things like the IETF consensus process, but there was a concern of naming any specific one out of concern for having to name too many. I tried to clarify the language in edits...
I have no objection to the language related to operational communities, but we cannot ignore the non operational communities and this language makes it seem like they are not relevant to consensus.
edits attached.
Joe
On 9/11/2014 11:39 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Thanks everyone for the work that has been put into this. My comments and suggestions are attached. Couple of process points:
* My understanding is that we intend as a group to finalize this document on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17.
* Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in the next iteration we could go back to using the document naming convention established by Patrik.<https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docum ents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20documen...>
Couple of substantive points that are also highlighted in the attached:
* In Section 3, I believe members who will be absent from a call should provide their views in advance, if they wish, to the full ICG, not just the chair/vice-chairs.
* In Section 4(b), I do not understand what “any other mechanisms of consensus” means.
* In Section 4(c), the second sentence of the Recommendation bullet seemed to require either running a consensus process twice, or it just repeated what was in the first sentence. I don’t think we want to run the same processes twice, so I deleted that sentence.
* In Section 4(c), I have reverted the language in the Recommendation example to the suggestion by Martin about directly affected communities being overruled. I think this very important edit was lost in the discussion last week.
* In Section 4(c), I don’t understand what this means: "Chair and vice chairs are advised to consider other possible consensus frameworks in addressing the issues, as appropriate to the nature of the case.” What are other possible consensus frameworks?
Thanks, Alissa
On 9/11/14, 6:46 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Martin, Thanks for comments May I then request you and others to comment on the clean Draft taking last comments from Wolf, previous comments from Joe,Jari ,Manal and some edits from me. See what I sent few mints ago .I wait till tomorrow Friday 12 Sept. On early Sunday I leave Geneva to attend CEPT meeting for PP-14 Thus it is preferable to make final draft before Sunday 13.09 Regards Kavouss
2014-09-11 12:39 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
No, I still have comments on this document. I hope to post in the next 24 hours.
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Sep 2014, at 11:28, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Wolf I found another area which could be grammatically and structurally be improved
It should be noted that a document is considered as a stable draft for approval, provided that the draft is available at least 7 calendar days before the date on which the approval process is scheduled .
[Aneffort shouldbemadeto document the variance in viewpoint] This part is deleted since does not say any thing at all..I kept the remaining but replaced justified minority views deviating from the recommendation can be separately expressed and documented in the report . Based on that.,may I produced a clean text
Kavouss
2014-09-11 11:24 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf May I now produce a clean document and send it to others for final comments notably of purely editorial and grammatical nature? Kavouss
2014-09-11 8:34 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Thanks Kavouss, accepted.
As you can see attached I suggest to shift the text marked under “Recommendation” to the part where the evaluation method is described. Or at least separate it from the bullet points here.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:37 AM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> <internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> <manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Thank you for your kind and prompt reply I have made following amendments to your draft as follows: Para. 4 a,second sub-para. second part of that sub-para ," is " is replaced by " should be "
Para. 4 b ,first bullet below sencond sub-para, The part saying " Consensus here refers to" is replced by" The above-mentioned " due to the fact that the paragraph to which this bullet referred does not deal with " Consensus" rather it referred to " Decicion" . In the same bullet the phrase" if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities" is replaced by" which would be handled on a case by case basis " This was the overall agreemnt that G11 reached after the ICG meeting in Istanbul . Last page , in iii, As a matter of fact, I am not comfortable in using any adjective like "serious" or " firm" or "major" to describe opposition . However, to be more cooperative I could reluctantly agree to use the adjective " justified" as such opposition needs to be submitted with necessary justifications .In that case the adjective " serious" is replaced by" justified " . Moreover, in reviewing the text, I found some structural and content mistakes in para. c) ,second bullet which I have corrected
Finally Under the same section c) in bullet 3 ,I suggest we replace" example " by " option" to be consistent with the terms used in bullet 2 above .However, I leave it to you to agree with that change
I hope you and others agree with these small edits Kavouss
2014-09-10 21:53 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear all,
attached please find my remaining amendments with the following explanations regarding some of them:
* 4.a. last paragraph: I’ve inserted “The selection is done by a majority vote.” Rationale: The para talks about “...run a vote...”. The succeeding voting threshold must be clear.
* 4.b. first paragraph: grammatical edits
* 4.b. insertion of an additional bullet point re principles (Manal) which I support
* 4.c.iii. re-insertion of “serious”
Rationale: Opportunity should not be given for all kinds of objection since the issue should have been discussed extensively in advance to the designation. The remaining objection should then be characterized as « serious ». I would in particular be interested in the chair’s/VCs’ opinion regarding the case by case approach since they may want to facilitate the process.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> <internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> <manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11 Dear All ICG Members , I wish to refer to the draft that I sent to you on 08 September, taking into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee’s comments emphasizing that chair and vice chairs should identify other possible mechanism apart from the one mentioned in that draft May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the covering message., We need to finalize this text as soon as possible Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building with the utmost efforts If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus. However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs together with any other interested party/ties should explore all possible ways and means to identify an appropriate mechanism for a satisfactory resolution of the matter toward consensus . One example and just one example to consider an sissue approved by consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according to the case under consideration, ( case by case concept) Waiting for your kind reply, I remain. Regards
2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us. The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with. Evey one pushes for its own. I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma You said quote *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration" Unqoute YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with other views Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and getting. I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media quoting some thing from me which I never said that . Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and mindful. Regards Kavouss .
2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear Kavouss,
your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion.
Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> <internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> <manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, Allow me to share some thoughts with you
First of all, It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus That is a tradition and past and present and future practice. I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting
That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
These are pure allegation and hostile positions Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me. Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG The issue is not who is right and who is not right. The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus. Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views . Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so. Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue. ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus Consequently,: 1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable
2. agree to the case by case concept 3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case 4. agree not to refer to quorum 5.agree not to refer to simple minority 6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus 7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making 8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues 9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed. 10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus TKS KAVOUSS
2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Joe,
you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> <internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Wolf:
I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum.
Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Dear Heather,
I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this
I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca <mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> <Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM To: wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ;kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> <Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call.
Heather
From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM To: Kavouss Arastehmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Coordination Groupmailto:Internal-cg@icann.org <Internal-cg@icann.org> <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> <Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
All,
let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator.
As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited.
Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> <manal@tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Coordination Group <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> <Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss
2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> <manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM To: Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: ICG <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> <internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All ..
As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that: - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus .. - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA - A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections) - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities)
ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically: - Stresses the need for reaching consensus - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend .. Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page .. Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:
1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.
2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :
Public commentsreceived as a result ofany forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be dulyconsideredand carefully analyzed.
3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read
''Following these basic principles, thechair will beresponsible for designatingeach ICG position as oneof the following;'
4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.
Safe trip everyone.
Mary Uduma
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
OOOOsh!!!!
Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.
Please ignore my last unfinished mail.
Mary
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko<jari.arkko@piuha.net> <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
<ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making, V1 New Round,starting 08 Sept + WUK 10 Sep.docx,KA,10 Sep, WUK 11 Sept,KA 11Sep.CLEAN VERSIPON ,.docx>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hi Joe, On 9/11/14, 3:36 PM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Alissa:
The reference to other frameworks was to things like the IETF consensus process, but there was a concern of naming any specific one out of concern for having to name too many. I tried to clarify the language in edits...
Thanks for the explanation and the suggested edit to the text, both of which help me understand the thrust of the “other frameworks” references. I agree that naming specific frameworks in the text is a bad idea, but I’m glad I understand now what people had in mind. The procedure specified in the document shares a lot in common with the IETF consensus process, which is perhaps why I didn’t think of it originally as an example of an “other framework,” but I get it.
I have no objection to the language related to operational communities, but we cannot ignore the non operational communities and this language makes it seem like they are not relevant to consensus.
I’ve tried an edit to this text in the attached, based on your email to Martin: One possible example in the “Recommendation” category, inter alia, could be that a Recommendation could be considered as adopted if at most a small minority disagree by documenting their objection(s), the representatives of an operational community significantly and directly affected by the conclusion have not been overruled, and the consensus sought was inclusive of all ICG communities. Alissa
edits attached.
Joe On 9/11/2014 11:39 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Thanks everyone for the work that has been put into this. My comments and suggestions are attached. Couple of process points:
* My understanding is that we intend as a group to finalize this document on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17.
* Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in the next iteration we could go back to using the document naming convention established by Patrik. <https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docu m ents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docu ments%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0>
Couple of substantive points that are also highlighted in the attached:
* In Section 3, I believe members who will be absent from a call should provide their views in advance, if they wish, to the full ICG, not just the chair/vice-chairs.
* In Section 4(b), I do not understand what “any other mechanisms of consensus” means.
* In Section 4(c), the second sentence of the Recommendation bullet seemed to require either running a consensus process twice, or it just repeated what was in the first sentence. I don’t think we want to run the same processes twice, so I deleted that sentence.
* In Section 4(c), I have reverted the language in the Recommendation example to the suggestion by Martin about directly affected communities being overruled. I think this very important edit was lost in the discussion last week.
* In Section 4(c), I don’t understand what this means: "Chair and vice chairs are advised to consider other possible consensus frameworks in addressing the issues, as appropriate to the nature of the case.” What are other possible consensus frameworks?
Thanks, Alissa
On 9/11/14, 6:46 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Martin, Thanks for comments May I then request you and others to comment on the clean Draft taking last comments from Wolf, previous comments from Joe,Jari ,Manal and some edits from me. See what I sent few mints ago .I wait till tomorrow Friday 12 Sept. On early Sunday I leave Geneva to attend CEPT meeting for PP-14 Thus it is preferable to make final draft before Sunday 13.09 Regards Kavouss
2014-09-11 12:39 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
No, I still have comments on this document. I hope to post in the next 24 hours.
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Sep 2014, at 11:28, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Wolf I found another area which could be grammatically and structurally be improved
It should be noted that a document is considered as a stable draft for approval, provided that the draft is available at least 7 calendar days before the date on which the approval process is scheduled .
[Aneffort shouldbemadeto document the variance in viewpoint] This part is deleted since does not say any thing at all..I kept the remaining but replaced justified minority views deviating from the recommendation can be separately expressed and documented in the report . Based on that.,may I produced a clean text
Kavouss
2014-09-11 11:24 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf May I now produce a clean document and send it to others for final comments notably of purely editorial and grammatical nature? Kavouss
2014-09-11 8:34 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Thanks Kavouss, accepted.
As you can see attached I suggest to shift the text marked under “Recommendation” to the part where the evaluation method is described. Or at least separate it from the bullet points here.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:37 AM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Thank you for your kind and prompt reply I have made following amendments to your draft as follows: Para. 4 a,second sub-para. second part of that sub-para ," is " is replaced by " should be "
Para. 4 b ,first bullet below sencond sub-para, The part saying " Consensus here refers to" is replced by" The above-mentioned " due to the fact that the paragraph to which this bullet referred does not deal with " Consensus" rather it referred to " Decicion" . In the same bullet the phrase" if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities" is replaced by" which would be handled on a case by case basis " This was the overall agreemnt that G11 reached after the ICG meeting in Istanbul . Last page , in iii, As a matter of fact, I am not comfortable in using any adjective like "serious" or " firm" or "major" to describe opposition . However, to be more cooperative I could reluctantly agree to use the adjective " justified" as such opposition needs to be submitted with necessary justifications .In that case the adjective " serious" is replaced by" justified " . Moreover, in reviewing the text, I found some structural and content mistakes in para. c) ,second bullet which I have corrected
Finally Under the same section c) in bullet 3 ,I suggest we replace" example " by " option" to be consistent with the terms used in bullet 2 above .However, I leave it to you to agree with that change
I hope you and others agree with these small edits Kavouss
2014-09-10 21:53 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear all,
attached please find my remaining amendments with the following explanations regarding some of them:
* 4.a. last paragraph: I’ve inserted “The selection is done by a majority vote.” Rationale: The para talks about “...run a vote...”. The succeeding voting threshold must be clear.
* 4.b. first paragraph: grammatical edits
* 4.b. insertion of an additional bullet point re principles (Manal) which I support
* 4.c.iii. re-insertion of “serious”
Rationale: Opportunity should not be given for all kinds of objection since the issue should have been discussed extensively in advance to the designation. The remaining objection should then be characterized as « serious ». I would in particular be interested in the chair’s/VCs’ opinion regarding the case by case approach since they may want to facilitate the process.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11 Dear All ICG Members , I wish to refer to the draft that I sent to you on 08 September, taking into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee’s comments emphasizing that chair and vice chairs should identify other possible mechanism apart from the one mentioned in that draft May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the covering message., We need to finalize this text as soon as possible Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building with the utmost efforts If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus. However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs together with any other interested party/ties should explore all possible ways and means to identify an appropriate mechanism for a satisfactory resolution of the matter toward consensus . One example and just one example to consider an sissue approved by consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according to the case under consideration, ( case by case concept) Waiting for your kind reply, I remain. Regards
2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us. The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with. Evey one pushes for its own. I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma You said quote *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration" Unqoute YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with other views Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and getting. I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media quoting some thing from me which I never said that . Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and mindful. Regards Kavouss .
2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear Kavouss,
your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration. The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for the discussion.
Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, Allow me to share some thoughts with you
First of all, It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted that to be against consensus That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus That is a tradition and past and present and future practice. I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting
That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
These are pure allegation and hostile positions Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a compromise for any problem I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me. Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating within the entire ICG The issue is not who is right and who is not right. The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus. Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views . Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case may be option Y to do so. Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue. ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt with by some operational communities as other operational communities have had different mechanism to achieve consensus Consequently,: 1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable
2. agree to the case by case concept 3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach consensus ,on a case by case 4. agree not to refer to quorum 5.agree not to refer to simple minority 6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus 7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making 8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues 9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for the full text that you have proposed. 10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and be ready to negotiate and join consensus TKS KAVOUSS
2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Wolf Dear Joe Dear all, Please be fair with me. I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options than the one I put in the draft Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Joe,
you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Wolf:
I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum.
Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Dear Heather,
I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this
I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca <mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> <mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM To: wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call.
Heather
From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
All,
let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator.
As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited.
Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Coordination Group <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss
2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM To: Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: ICG <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All ..
As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that: - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus .. - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA - A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections) - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities)
ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically: - Stresses the need for reaching consensus - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend .. Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page .. Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:
1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.
2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :
Public commentsreceived as a result ofany forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be dulyconsideredand carefully analyzed.
3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read
''Following these basic principles, thechair will beresponsible for designatingeach ICG position as oneof the following;'
4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.
Safe trip everyone.
Mary Uduma
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
OOOOsh!!!!
Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.
Please ignore my last unfinished mail.
Mary
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
<ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making, V1 New Round,starting 08 Sept + WUK 10 Sep.docx,KA,10 Sep, WUK 11 Sept,KA 11Sep.CLEAN VERSIPON ,.docx>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (6)
-
Alissa Cooper -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Martin Boyle -
Mary Uduma -
WUKnoben